Shoham (North) : Late Chalcolithic burial caves in the Lod Valley, Israel 9654061848, 9789654065658, 9789654061841

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 27

SHOHAM (NORTH) LATE CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES IN THE LOD VALLEY, ISRAEL

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND R AM GOPHNA

With contributions by Israel Carmi, Catherine Commenge, Vered Eshed, Sonia Itkis, Uri Kafri, Nili Liphschitz, Ofer Marder, Henk K. Mienis, Yorke M. Rowan, Tamar Schick and Dror Segal

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2005

2

Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief Zvi Gal Series Editor Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume Editor Shelley Sadeh

Front and Back Covers: View of the site (photographer: T. Sagiv) and selected ossuaries (photographer: C. Amit).

Typesetting, Layout and Production: Margalit Hayosh Illustrations: Irina Brin and Natalia Zak Printed at Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem Copyright © 2005, The Israel Antiquities Authority POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 965-406-184-8 eISBN 9789654065658

3

Dedicated to the memory of Prof. Ruth Amiran, 1914–2005, friend, mentor and teacher

4

5

CONTENTS

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

viii

PREFACE CHAPTER 1: CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES AT SHOHAM (NORTH)

Edwin C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna

1

CHAPTER 2: LOCATION AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Uri Kafri

7

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

Edwin C.M. van den Brink

9

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

Edwin C.M. van den Brink

27

CHAPTER 5: MAT IMPRESSIONS ON CHALCOLITHIC OSSUARY BASES

Tamar Schick

47

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

Catherine Commenge

51

CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY BRONZE AGE I POTTERY

Ram Gophna and Edwin C.M. van den Brink

99

CHAPTER 8: THE INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Edwin C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna

107

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

Yorke M. Rowan

113

CHAPTER 10: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

Ofer Marder

141

CHAPTER 11: THE HUMAN REMAINS

Vered Eshed

149

CHAPTER 12: THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS

Nili Liphschitz

151

CHAPTER13: THE MOLLUSC REMAINS

Henk K. Mienis

155

CHAPTER 14: THE MAGNETIC SURVEY

Sonia Itkis

159

CHAPTER 15: THE RADIOCARBON DATES FROM CAVE 4

Israel Carmi and Dror Segal

163

IV

CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

Ram Gophna and Edwin C.M. van den Brink

165

EXCURSUS 1: CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES IN COASTAL AND INLAND ISRAEL

Edwin C.M. van den Brink

175

EXCURSUS 2: THE VEGETATION OF THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Nili Liphschitz

191

APPENDIX 1: AREA A1. LIST OF LOCI AND BASKETS

199

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF BASKETS FROM CAVE 4, THE SECOND EXCAVATION SEASON

205

Addresses of contributors not on the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority (POB 586, Jerusalem 91004) Ram Gophna Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Uri Kafri Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem. Catherine Commenge CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France), Centre d‘Anthropologie—Ecole des Hautes-Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Toulouse. dfthstystrywerterteqrtwertwewertywertertwertewrtwetrwertwertwetrwetrwetwertwetwetwetwetwet Yorke M. Rowan Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Vered Eshed Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Nili Liphschitz Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. Henk K. Mienis Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Sonia Itkis Department of Geology and Environmental Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Israel Carmi Department of Environmental Science and Energy Research, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot. Dror Segal Museum of Regional Mediterranean Archaeology, Gan Ha-Shelosha, Nir David.

vii V

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR ADAJ AJA BA BAR BAR Int. S. BASOR BIES EI ESI HA IAA Reports IEJ JPOS LAAA NEAEHL PEQ QDAP RB ZDPV

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Journal of Archaeology Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review British Archaeological Reports International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society Eretz-Israel Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hadashot Arkheologiyot Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem 1993 Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue Biblique Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

viii VI

PREFACE

Salvage excavations at the archaeological site of Shoham were carried out by the authors in anticipation of the construction of today’s thriving town of the same name, from June 12th until August 9th, 1994 and resumed, after a short interruption, from September 1st until November 17th, 1994 (IAA License No. 2148). The second season (IAA License No. 2338) took place between August 7th and August 24th, 1995. The excavations revealed a karstic cave system consisting of four interconnected caves that were used intermittently for burial as well as domestic purposes during the Chalcolithic period, Early Bronze Age I and Intermediate Bronze Age. Careful analyses of the finds deriving from the Chalcolithic burial contexts, in particular the ceramic ossuaries and pottery assemblages, the groundstone and flint assemblages, and the human, archaeobotanical and faunal remains, have contributed to a better understanding of Chalcolithic mortuary behaviour in this area, as well as the distribution pattern of Chalcolithic burial caves and associated contemporaneous settlement sites in the coastal plain and beyond. The excavations were directed by the authors on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority with the assistance and participation of numerous people. During the first season: I. Accus, U. Ad, M. Mints, H. Torge and G. Jinjikhashvili (area supervision), with the participation of A. Hajian and N. Kollele (surveying), T. Sagiv (field photography), G. Cohen and A. Kloner (administration), S. Itkis (geophysical and magnetometric tests), U. Kafri (geological survey) and O. Marder (flint analysis).

During the second season: M. Dagon (area supervision and pottery registration) and E. Yannai, with the participation of O. Marder (flint analysis), C. Commenge (pottery analysis), L.K. Horwitz and M. Sade (archaeozoology), N. Lipschitz (palaeobotany), H. Mienis (archaeomalacology), Y. Rowan (groundstone analysis), D. Segal and I. Carmi (14C analysis), A. Hajian (surveying), T. Sagiv (field photography), D. Amir (administration) and V. Eshed (physical anthropology). The excavations were financed by the Kol Binyan Company. Thanks are due to the late A. Drori, former Director of the Antiquities Authority and Y. Levy, Central District’s archaeologist, for their encouragement during the actual fieldwork. Practical advice in the field was also given by E. Yannai and R. Badhi. The studio photography is the fine work of C. Amit and T. Sagiv. The very fragmented pottery was most skillfully restored by M. Ben-Gal, Y. Bukengolts and L. Milevski. The artifacts were expertly drawn by M. Rappaport and C. Hersch. E. Lass gave his kind permission to mention some of his findings from Tittora/Modi‘in. The authors also benefited from the remarks of the anonymous reader of the final draft of this volume and the bibliographical assistance of B. Brandl. Special thanks are due to Shelley Sadeh and Ann Hurowitz for their critical and constructive reading, scrutinizing and editing of this report. To all these people who contributed to the excavations and the subsequent publication, the authors are most grateful.

CHAPTER 1: CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES AT SHOHAM (NORTH)

1

CHAPTER 1

CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES AT SHOHAM (NORTH) EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA

INTRODUCTION The Shoham (North) archaeological site1 is located in the Lod Valley, in the central coastal plain (map ref. OIG 1444/1575), 20 km southeast of Tel Aviv and 7 km northeast of Lod, on the western margins of the mountainous Shomeron Anticline (Fig. 1.1). It is situated at a height of c. 90 m above sea level and enjoys a typical Mediterranean climate, with an average annual precipitation of over 500 mm, the average temperature ranging from 7 to 17° C in January and 22 to 31° C in August (see Chap. 12). The area has been under continuous cultivation since ancient

Fig. 1.1. Location map of Shoham (N).

times and the primary vegetation is almost extinct (see Excursus 2). Karstic features are abundant in the entire region and still partially active, in particular caves and collapse structures formed by the natural processes of dissolution of the limestone and dolomite bedrock by rain water and ground water. The Rosh Ha-‘Ayin springs slightly north of Shoham are indicative of such systems in the subsurface (see Chap. 2). The salvage excavations took place during the years 1994 and 1995 in three different excavation areas (A1–A3; Fig. 1.2) in the northern part of Shoham. The major subsurface feature in the main excavation area (Area A1) is a karstic cave system consisting of at least four interconnected caves2 that were used for burial as well as domestic purposes during various periods from the Chalcolithic onwards. Area A2 (excavated area 64 sq m), located c. 500 m south of Area A1, yielded

Fig. 1.2. Shoham (N). Excavation Areas A1–A3.

2

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA

shallow campsite remains dating to the early phase of the Early Bronze Age I (EB IA), including a small pottery kiln above a natural layer of wadi cobblestones. Area A3 (in subsequent excavations referred to as Shoham Northeast; see p. 4), situated c. 400 m to the northeast of Area A2 on a bare hillock, yielded three winepress installations dating from the Byzantine period. Presented here is the final report of Area A1. The four caves investigated here must be understood as only a sample of an entire system of cemeteries within karstic caves situated in the limestone foothills of the mountainous Shomeron Anticline, known so far from Ben Shemen in the south to the vicinity of El‘ad (Mazor) in the north and beyond (see Excursus 1).

PAST AND PRESENT R ESEARCH IN AND AROUND THE TOWN OF SHOHAM For a general overview of archaeological research carried out since 1941 in a c. 5 km radius around Shoham, the reader is referred to van den Brink and Grosinger (2004:82, Table 1), where this topic has been dealt with in relation to a recently excavated late EB I (EB IB) burial and dwelling cave site near Horbat Tinshemet, situated less than 2 km southeast of the present Shoham site (Fig. 1.3).3 A number of surveys and excavations of Late Chalcolithic sites have been carried out recently in the surroundings of the site (Figs. 1.2, 1.3; Table 1.1). In the years 1975, 1978 and 1982 an archaeological survey, the Map of Lod (80), was conducted by R. Gophna and I. Beit-Arieh with the participation of students from the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. Information on some 70 odd sites and find spots within a 2 km radius around the now-sprawling town of Shoham was gathered and collated (Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997). Of these sites, thirteen can be dated to the Late Chalcolithic period (see Fig. 1.3). At the present site (Shoham [N] Area A1; Fig. 1.2), a few fragments of clay ossuaries were picked up during the 1975 survey (Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1977: Site 54). During salvage excavations in 1992 on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) on the western slopes of the very hillside above which the present cave site is located, Y. Nadelman uncovered remains from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, EB I and Byzantine periods. The Chalcolithic materials uncovered beneath EB I building remains include fragments of clay

Fig. 1.3. Location map of Late Chalcolithic burial caves and dwelling sites in the vicinity of Shoham.

ossuaries, cornets4 and basalt vessels, as well as two broken, hematite maceheads (Nadelman 1995). In 1993 and 1995 two additional excavation areas were opened by Nadelman (Areas F and G), yielding materials dating mainly from the Byzantine period (Nadelman 1996; 1998). Some Chalcolithic pottery was also found in Area F (Fig. 1.2; Gophna and BeitArieh 1997:43*: Site 80). In 1994, five caves (B1–B5; see Fig. 1.2) were excavated at Shoham (South) by R. Gophna and A. Feldstein under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). All five caves revealed evidence of an initial, domestic use during the Late Chalcolithic period. The ceramic assemblage is very similar to that uncovered in the Late Chalcolithic settlement remains at Giv‘at Oranim (see below). Moreover, two of the caves (B1 and B3) yielded a few fragments of ceramic ossuaries, indicating a Late Chalcolithic burial phase as well. All the caves were reused in later periods

CHAPTER 1: CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES AT SHOHAM (NORTH)

3

Table 1.1. Burial Sites in and around Shoham Site

Type of Site/Status

References

Mazor (West / El‘ad)

1 burial and dwelling cave/excavated

Milevski, pers. comm. 2001

Qula

10 burial caves/6 excavated

Milevski and Shevo 1999; Milevski 2001a, b, forthcoming

Horbat Hani (West)

1 burial cave/excavated

Lass 1998; 2003

Ras es-Summaq

1 burial cave/unexcavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:30*: Site 26

Nahal Bet ‘Arif (1)

Pottery

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:36*: Site 53

Shoham (North)

1 burial cave/unexcavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:36*–37*: Site 54; Gophna 1989

Shoham (North)

5 burial caves/4 excavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:36*–37*: Site 54; van den Brink and Gophna 1997, 1998, this volume

Shoham (North)/ Kh. Hamid

Settlement/probed

Finkelstein 1978:24; Nadelman 1995 (Area B); Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:37*: Site 56

Shoham (Northeast)

Burial cave/partly excavated

van den Brink 2005; in press

Giv‘at Oranim

Dwelling caves/excavated

Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004

el-Khirba

Pottery (Area F)

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:43*: Site 80; Nadelmann 1996

Horbat Tinshemet

1 cave/partially excavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:44*: Site 84; van den Brink and Grosinger 2000, in press

Shoham (Center)

Burial cave (?)/unexcavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:43*: Site 79

Nahal Bet ‘Arif (2)

Burial cave/excavated(?)

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:46*: Site 91

Shoham (South)

5 dwelling-burial caves/excavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:52*–53*: Site 125; Gophna and Feldstein 1998

Nevallat

Dwelling and installations

van den Brink et al. 2001; van den Brink and Lazar 2005; in prep.

Nahal Nevallat

Pottery(?)

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:56*: Site 138

Lod/Lydda

Pottery

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:66*–68*: Site 184; van den Brink 1999:47*; Yannai and Marder 2000:63*

Ben Shemen

6 burial caves/excavated

Perrot and Ladiray 1980; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:72*: Site 204

Tittora/Modi‘in

2 dwelling(?) caves/excavated

Lass, pers. comm. 1997

(from the EB I until the Early Islamic period; Wolff 1996:729–731; Gophna and Feldstein 1998). In 1994 and 1995 the authors (van den Brink and Gophna 1997; 1998) excavated a cave system in the north of Shoham on behalf of the IAA. These caves are the main focus of the present volume. In 1995, E. Lass of the IAA excavated a collapsed cave at Horbat Hani (West), which evidently had been used during the Late Chalcolithic period as a burial cave (see Fig. 1.3; Lass 1998, 2003). In 1996, E.C.M. van den Brink and Z. Grosinger excavated, on behalf of the IAA, a late EB I burial cave less than 2 km to the southeast of the present site, near Horbat Tinshemet (see Fig. 1.3). It may have been used in the Late Chalcolithic period and then reused during the later EB I for domestic purposes (van den Brink and Grosinger 2004).

During inspection work by the IAA in that same year, seven Chalcolithic caves were located at Qula (West), c. 4 km north of Shoham (North) (see Fig. 1.3). Based on an analysis of the surface finds, it was determined that all the caves had probably been used for burial purposes. Two of these burial caves were partially excavated in 1997 by I. Milevski and E. Shevo on behalf of the IAA (Milevski and Shevo 1999:40*); another four caves were excavated in 2000/2001 by Milevski (2001a, b; 2002). At the site of Giv‘at Oranim (Nahal Bareqet; see Fig. 1.3), approximately 2 km east of the present Shoham (N) cave site, R. Oren and N. Scheftelowitz excavated in 1997, on behalf of Tel Aviv University, a number of caves and pits connected by a network of underground passages that were used for burial as well as dwelling purposes during the Late Chalcolithic period.51Among

4

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA

the finds here are numerous basalt bowls, one of them a unique pedestaled, rectangular (sic!) bowl with four interconnected legs, various maceheads and two copper standards (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004). In the same year, E. Lass excavated, on behalf of the IAA, two collapsed cave structures at Tittora, Modi‘in (see Fig. 1.3), which yielded materials dating to the Early as well as the Late Chalcolithic periods (including a ‘torpedo’-shaped vessel and a violin-shaped stone figurine; E. Lass, pers. comm.).6 In 1999 one of the authors (E.v.d.B) excavated a partly-collapsed cave located less than 100 m east of an ancient winepress installation (see Fig. 1.3), uncovered by the authors in 1994 in what was then labeled Area A3 (see Fig. 1.2; during the subsequent excavations

referred to as Shoham Northeast; van den Brink 2005, in press). The first use of this cave was during the Late Chalcolithic period for burial purposes, with a (domestic) reuse of the cave during the late EB I, not unlike the situation encountered in some of the other caves at Shoham (North). In 2000, on behalf of the IAA, D. Lazar-Shorer (2001) examined another natural cave in the south of Shoham, slightly to the west of the five caves excavated in 1994 by R. Gophna and A. Feldstein. It was used during the Chalcolithic period for domestic purposes. Finally, in 2001, I. Milevski excavated Late Chalcolithic burial and dwelling remains in a cave at Mazor (West), located c. 3 km north of Shoham (see Fig. 1.3; Milevski, pers. comm.).

NOTES 1

Shoham (North) is distinguished from another cave site, Shoham (South), located c. 1.5 km southwest of the present site and excavated by one of the authors (R.G.) and A. Feldstein on behalf of the Antiquities Authority (Gophna and Feldstein 1998). As a further distinction between the two sites, excavation Area A was assigned to Shoham (N), Area B to Shoham (S) (see Fig. 1.2). 2 In 1995, a fifth cave was located less than 100 m north of the center of Area A1. Chalcolithic sherds were collected at this spot from the surface by IAA archaeologist O. Shemueli. Due to financial constraints, this particular cave could not be excavated. Therefore, the extent of this cave was investigated radiometrically only (see Chap. 14). Its entrance was subsequently sealed with large natural boulders.

3

Three small-scale excavations around Shoham, published after completion of the Tinshemet manuscript, can be added here: the excavations at Kh. el-Bira (Scheftelowitz and Oren 1999), Bareqet (South) (Birman 1999) and el-Haditha (Brand 1999). 4 It is perhaps noteworthy that Y. Nadelman recovered numerous fragments of cornets (found in secondary contexts) over a relatively small excavation area, whereas only five cornet fragments were found in the nearby, extensively excavated Late Chalcolithic burial caves at issue. 5 Additional salvage excavations were carried out at the same site in 1998 by E. Yannai on behalf of the IAA (E. Yannai, pers. comm. 2000). 6 The authors wish to thank E. Lass for his kind permission to mention these findings.

REFERENCES Birman G. 1999. Bareqet (South). ESI 19:43*. Brand E. 1999. el-Haditha. ESI 19:44*–46*. Brink E.C.M. van den. 1997. Shoham (North) ESI 16:84–85. Brink E.C.M. van den. 1998. Shoham (North). ESI 18:71. Brink E.C.M. van den. 1999. Lod, Nevé Yaraq. HA–ESI 110:47*–48*. Brink E.C.M. van den. 2005. Shoham (Northeast). HA–ESI 117. www.hadahsot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=153 &mag_id=110. Brink E.C.M. van den. In press. Late Chalcolithic Burial Remains and Early Bronze Age I Dwelling Remains in a Cave at Shoham (Northeast). ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den and Gophna R. 1997. Shoham (North). ESI 16:84–85.

Brink E.C.M. van den and Gophna R. 1998. Shoham (North). ESI 18:71. Brink E.C.M. van den and Grosinger Z. 2004. An EB IB Burial and Dwelling Cave near Horbat Tinshemet. ‘Atiqot 47: 81–99. Brink E.C.M. van den and Lazar D. 2005. Horbat Nevallat. HA– ESI 117. www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id= 154&mag_id=110N (accessed November, 2005). Brink E.C.M. van den and Lazar D. In preparation. A Chalcolithic Habitation and Installation Site and Later Remains along Nahal Nevallat. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den, Liphschitz N., Lazar D. and Bonani G. 2001. Chalcolithic Dwelling Remains, Cup Marks and Olive (Olea europaea) Stones at Nevallat. IEJ 51:36–43.

CHAPTER 1: CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES AT SHOHAM (NORTH)

Finkelstein I. 1978. Rural Settlements in the Foothills and the Yarkon Basin in the Israelite-Hellenistic Periods. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gophna R. 1989. From Village to Town in the Lod Valley: A Case Study. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 97–107. Gophna R. and Beit-Arieh I. 1997. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Lod (80). Jerusalem. Gophna R. and Feldstein A.1998. Shoham (South). ESI 18: 72–73. Lass E. 1998. Horbat Hani (West). ESI 18:66. Lass E. 2003. An Early Bronze Age IB Burial Cave and Byzantine Farm at Horbat Hani (Khirbet Burj el-Haniya) (West). ‘Atiqot 44:1–51. Lazar-Shorer D. 2001. Shoham. HA–ESI 113:67*–68*. Milevski I. 2001a. Qula, Area J. HA–ESI 113:63*. Milevski I. 2001b. Qula, Area K. HA–ESI 113:62*–63*. Milevski I. 2002. A New Fertility Figurine and New Animal Motifs from the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant: Finds from Cave K-1 at Quleh, Israel. Paléorient 28:133–142.

5

Milevski I. Forthcoming. Excavations at Qula (West). ‘Atiqot. Milevski I. and Shevo E. 1999. Qula (West) 1997. HA–ESI 110:39*–41*. Nadelman Y. 1995. Shoham. ESI 14:80–81. Nadelman Y. 1996. Shoham—1993. ESI 15:63–64. Nadelman Y. 1998. Shoham—1995. ESI 18:69–71. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Oren R. and Scheftelowitz N. 1999. Giv‘at Oranim (Nahal Bareqet). HA–ESI 110:48*–50*. Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R. 1999. Kh. el-Bira. ESI 19: 42*–43*. Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R. 2004. Giv‘at Ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site (Salvage Excavations Reports 1). Tel Aviv. Wolff S. 1996. Excavations in Israel. AJA 100:725–768. Yannai E. and Marder O. 2000. Lod. HA–ESI 112:63*–65*.

6

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA

CHAPTER 1: CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES AT SHOHAM (NORTH)

7

CHAPTER 2

LOCATION AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND URI KAFRI

The Shoham archaeological site is located on the western margins of the mountainous Shomeron Anticlinorium, on top of the Bina Formation of Turonian Age (Fig. 2.1). In the vicinity of Shoham the Bina Formation is either exposed or covered by dark soil ranging in thickness from a few tens of centimeters to several meters. The Bina Formation is a marine formation, deposited in a shallow sea some 90 million years ago. It consists, basically, of light gray limestone composed of calcium carbonate, usually coarsely crystalline at the base and finely crystalline in its upper part. Reefs which consist of fossil colonies are also abundant in this formation. It overlies the Weradim Formation of late Cenomanian to early Turonian Age, which consists mainly of massive dark gray marine (Ca-Mg carbonate) dolomite. To the south, in the Ben Shemen area—also notable for the presence of Chalcolithic burial caves—the Bina Formation underlies younger Senonian (‘En Zetim) formations which consist mainly of chert-bearing chalks and marls. The young tectonic uplift in the Shoham vicinity is responsible for the fact that the Bina Formation is not covered by younger chalk formations. It is also accompanied by deformation evidenced by an almost perpendicular set of partly closed cracks and joints. The most important elements in respect to the archaeological site are the karstic features abundant in the entire region and still partly active. These features include caves, sinkholes, solution channels and collapse structures formed by natural processes of dissolution of the (carbonate) limestone and dolomite by rain water and ground water (Fig. 2.2). This karstification process has been described in numerous studies (e.g., Milanovic 1981). The above features are known throughout the foothill regions, appearing as karstic caves (i.e., Soreq Cave), as well as to the north of the region (see, for instance, the latest finds reported from Qula [Milevski and Shevo

1999]). The Rosh Ha-‘Ayin springs are indicative of such systems in the subsurface. The Weradim and Bina Formations both form an aquifer (water-bearing unit) of major importance here,

.

Fig. 2.1. Geological map of Shoham and environs (after the geological map, 1:50,000, Sheet 8-III Lod, The Geological Survey, Jerusalem 1997).

8

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN URIBRINK KAFRIAND RAM GOPHNA

Fig. 2.2. Schematic representation of karstification (after Kafri and Foster 1984: Fig. 5c).

as elsewhere, due to their highly conductive hydraulic properties. The overlying Senonian chalk formations are regarded as an impervious (aquiclude) unit. Rain water at the intake area of the aquifer is enriched with CO2, which results in dissolution of the carbonate rocks, forming mostly vertical solution channels in the unsaturated zone (above the water table). Below the water table, in the shallow phreatic zone, the karstification processes are intensified and the systems are more horizontal, parallel to the flow direction.

In order for the solution processes to begin, an initial permeability or conductivity is required, which is fulfilled by the open joints or fossil vugs. During the process, solution channels and caves are formed and enlarged, and soils from the top are ‘swallowed’ and accumulated in the system. In some cases the cave roofs eventually collapse inwards, as seen in our site (in particular Caves 1, 3 and 4).

REFERENCES Kafri U. and Foster M.B.J. 1984. Hydrogeology of the Malmani Dolomite in the Klip River and Natalspruit Basins, South Africa. Environmental Geological Water Science 13:153–166.

Milanovic P.T. 1981. Karst Hydrogeology (Water Resources Publication). Denver. Milevski I. and Shevo E. 1999. Qula (West) 1997. HA–ESI 110:39*–41*.

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

CHAPTER 3

THE EXCAVATION EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

SURFACE Area A1 (Plan 3.1) covered an area of c. 60 × 40 m, at 88 to 93 m asl, with a natural east–west gradient of c. 20% (Fig. 3.1). A layer of dark soil (brown grumic) covered the bedrock surface, ranging from a few tens of centimeters to a maximum of 1.5 m (Plan 3.2: Section 2-2). Stripped of its cover, the bedrock revealed a karstic system of four caves and a number of natural, as well as man-made, features. The former, discussed above by U. Kafri (Chap. 2), includes partly closed, perpendicular cracks and joints in the bedrock (see Plan 3.2), indicating the geologically young tectonic uplift of the area. Also part of the karstic system are sinkholes, one of which (Plan 3.2: Locus 125; Section 1-1; Fig. 3.2) had been adapted to human needs; its

Plan 3.1. Plan of Area A1 with location of Caves 1–4.


Fig. 3.1. General view of excavation Area A1 after exposure of natural bedrock. Looking west.

9

10

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

144 835

133–134; 3.3), the other at the southern end of the area (Plans 3.2: Locus 101; 3.4; Fig. 3.3). The pottery found in association with these two installations indicates they must have been cut during the Late Byzantine or Early Islamic period.

144 820

walls were covered with a thick lime plaster, most likely during the Early Islamic period, to serve as a container of some sort. The man-made features found hewn into the bedrock surface are two winepress installations, one located at the northern end of the excavation area (Plans 3.2: Loci

L134 L134

L136

L133

157 285

L125

1

1

0

4

m

91.50

2

L125 90.50

Eastern lim

1-1

L121 157 270

it of excava

tion area

92.50

L124 L107 L123 L119

2

L132

L101

L137

94.50

93.50

2-2

Plan 3.2. Detail of Plan 3.1, showing various natural and man-made surface features; western face of eastern balk (Section 2-2) of Area A1 and cross section of sinkhole L125 (Section 1-1).

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

A small number of cupmarks of uncertain date were revealed in different parts of the area. No other features or structures were observed above ground.

Plan 3.3. Loci 133 and 134. Plan and cross section of northern winepress installation.

Plan 3.4. Loci 101 and 123. Plan and cross section of southern winepress installation.

11

Based on the sparse ceramic material recovered from the fill of bedrock pockets all over the area (see Appendix 1: Surface loci), it can be stated in general that the area (aside from the caves themselves, see below) had been in use during parts of the Byzantine, Early Islamic and Ottoman periods, with the majority of the potsherds belonging to the Early Islamic period.

Fig. 3.2. L125. Plastered sinkhole, looking north.

Fig. 3.3. L101. Winepress installation, looking north.

12

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

THE CAVES Cave 1 (Plans 3.5, 3.6; Figs. 3.4–3.13) In 1975 a team from Tel Aviv University surveying the Lod map [80] (see above, Chap. 1), headed by one of the authors (R.G.), collected several Chalcolithic ossuary fragments from the surface that indicated the likely presence of a burial cave (Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:36*: Site 54). The exact spot (L100; Fig. 3.4) was

located in preparation for the 1994 excavations and served as one of the starting points for further research in the area. Description Clearing the topsoil at the find spot (L100) revealed part of a recent fill in the northeastern part of a cave, the roof of which had partially caved in long since (Fig. 3.5). The irregular-shaped cave measures c. 12 m

Plan 3.5. Cave 1. Plan and sections: east–west (1-1) and north–south (2-2).

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

Fig. 3.4. Cave 1, L100. Initial excavation spot on top of caved-in area. Looking northwest.

13

Fig. 3.5. Cave 1, L100. Top of stone debris sealing limekiln L116.

Fig. 3.6. Cave 1. Top view of cave, looking north, showing L141 to the left and L102 to the right of partial roof.

north–south and 11 m east–west (Plan 3.5). Its maximum height varies between c. 1.5 and 2.0 m. Most of the eastern, central and westernmost parts of the ceiling had already collapsed in antiquity (Fig. 3.6). The roof of the cave (thickness varying between 0.5 and 1.5 m) was found intact only over a small part of the northeastcentral portion, near the cave’s northern end and above and around a natural pillar (1 m high and 0.75 m wide) supporting the roof (Plan 3.5: Section 2-2). In the northern end of the cave, a narrow, natural opening through the bedrock immediately behind the pillar, just wide enough to let a single person pass through, gave access to Cave 2, situated at a slightly lower level (see Plan 3.5: Section 2-2). The cave’s original entrance could not be identified with certainty; most likely access was through an aperture in the cave’s roof.

Stratigraphy The cave, filled to its ceiling with natural soil mixed with anthropogenic material, was fully excavated down to bedrock, except for a small section against the southern end of the cave (L152a; Plan 3.5: Section 1-1), where an Intermediate Bronze Age burial was uncovered in the upper levels of the fill (see Chap. 8). The earliest, undisturbed remains were found at bedrock level in a limited area in the north-central part of the cave (L122; c. 2.5 × 2.0 m) where the cave’s ceiling was still intact, between the eastern face of the pillar and the northern end of the cave (see Plan 3.5). The remains consist of at least eight Chalcolithic ossuary jars of various types (Plan 3.6; see further Chap. 4) containing secondary burials, together with associated pottery (Figs. 3.7–3.10). The ossuary jars

14

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Plan 3.6. Cave 1, L122. Burial locus. Plan of in situ ossuaries (designated by basket numbers).

Fig. 3.8. Cave 1, L122. Ossuary jar No. 1123.

Fig. 3.7. Cave 1, L122. Detail of western part of burial locus, showing ossuary jar No. 1123. Note the back wall of the cave and part of pillar (extreme left-central). Looking north.

originally stood on stones resting on the bedrock surface. These stones were covered with a thin layer of slightly greasy, gray soil, indicating that some kind of ritual (burning of offerings; oil libation?) must have been performed here. Another three (secondary)

burials were deposited in open vessels (a basin and two ‘V-shaped’ bowls), standing alongside the ossuary jars. The bases of two additional ossuary jars were discovered in a small bedrock pocket at the base of the pillar (L155; Plans 3.5: Section 2-2; 3.6). Apart from a few fragments (L122, Basket 1121) deriving from the actual burial locus and from a fill in the western part of the cave (L152b), rectangular ossuaries were conspicuously absent in this cave. Locus 122 was severely cut in the south and southwest by the construction, in much later times,

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

Fig. 3.9. Cave 1, L122. Detail of central-south part of burial locus with ossuary No. 1129 (center right) and fragment No. 1121 of rectangular ossuary. Looking west.

15

Fig. 3.10. Cave 1, L122. Close up of ossuary jar No. 1129.

Fig. 3.11. Cave 1, Loci 116 and 141. Remains of lime kiln. Looking south.

of a limekiln (Plan 3.5: Loci 116, 141; Fig. 3.11). The stone foundations of the kiln (slightly less than 3 m in diameter), preserved up to 0.75 m high with five courses of medium-sized fieldstones, occupied the northeastern bedrock area of the cave (below L100) where the ceiling had collapsed. The bottom of the kiln (natural bedrock) was still covered with a thick layer of fine, pulverized lime and burned limestones.

The area east of the kiln, towards the eastern end of the cave, was still partially covered by its original ceiling. Although apparently undisturbed, this part of the cave (Plan 3.5: L102, Section 1-1) did not yield any evidence of additional ossuary jars. It mainly consisted of a fill containing sherds from the Early Islamic period, a single Intermediate Bronze Age body sherd (most probably deriving from an Intermediate

16

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Fig. 3.12. Cave 1, L152a. Stone wall delineating Intermediate Bronze Age burial. Looking north.

L122)2 and EB I sherds. The latter indicate a reuse of this cave during the late EB I (EB IB), probably as an area of (domestic) refuse. Similar materials were found in substantial deposits in the adjoining cave (Cave 2), L128 (see Chap. 7). A second reuse of part of the cave, during the Intermediate Bronze Age, is attested by a single, primary burial of a male adult, in right lateral, semicontracted position, his back close to the southern end of the cave, head (missing) to the east and feet in the west (Plan 3.5: L152a, Sections 1-1, 2-2). Fragments of the skull were found in the fill of the central part of the cave. The burial was uncovered above L152b, in an area where the cave’s ceiling was still intact. A jar, an amphoriskos and two cups lay in front of the deceased (Figs. 3.12, 3.13, and see Fig. 8.1). Sporadic remains of the Intermediate Bronze Age were also discovered in the upper layers of Caves 2 and 4 (see Chap. 8: Figs. 8.2, 8.3). Cave 2 (Plan 3.7; Figs. 3.14–3.17)

Fig. 3.13. Cave 1, L152a. Jar No. 1306 associated with Intermediate Bronze Age burial. Looking east.

Bronze Age burial [Fig. 3.12] located in the centralwestern part of the cave; see Chap. 8), a much eroded sherd of Gray Burnished Ware (see below, Chap. 7) and scattered Chalcolithic sherds, the latter probably deriving from the burial area in L122. The western part of the cave, extending south of the pillar to the cave’s southwestern end,1 contained no special features. The main locus in this part of the cave (L152b) consisted of a mixed fill with both Chalcolithic (most likely deriving from the burials in

Description While cleaning the surface area immediately northwest of Cave 1, the entrance—the only one that could be positively identified as such (Figs. 3.14, 3.15)—to yet another cave was located.3 It consists of a natural, oval-shaped aperture in the bedrock surface, c. 0.9 m in diameter, found blocked by several limestone boulders. It had been slightly adapted to human needs, although probably not during the initial use of the cave (the Chalcolithic period), but during its reuse in the late EB I (see Chap. 7). Five ‘steps’ had been hewn into the bedrock, over a distance of a little more than 2 m, leading obliquely into the cave (Plan 3.7). The cave measures c. 12 × 5 m, is irregular in shape, and has two (natural) niches in its northern end and one in its western side. The absence of ceramic sherds dating later than the Late Chalcolithic period in the fill of all three niches would seem to indicate that they were accessible only during the earliest period of use (Chalcolithic). On the basis of the finds, it was not possible to distinguish functionally between the niches and the rest of the cave: both seem to have been used for burial practices. The cave’s maximum height is c. 1.8 m, and its roof is at least 0.60 m thick (Plan 3.7: Section 1-1). In the southeastern ‘corner’ of the cave a small aperture provides access to Cave 1, leading to the area behind the natural pillar, close to

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

17

Fig. 3.14. Cave 2, L113a. Entrance to Cave 2 blocked by boulders. Looking east.

Fig. 3.15. Cave 2, L113b. Entrance leading to Cave 2, after removal of boulders. Looking east.

the spot with the Chalcolithic ossuary jars described above (L122). Through a natural crevice (L176) in the northeastern part of Cave 2, another adjoining cave (4) was reached.

Three stratigraphic units could be observed (Plan 3.7; Fig. 3.16). The uppermost stratum (Stratum III) consisted of a dark, humic topsoil, c. 0.70 m thick, evenly distributed throughout the cave. Besides limestone debris of varying sizes which had fallen from the ceiling, this stratum was featureless, and therefore excavated as a single unit (L127). Ceramic sherds (a mixture of Late Chalcolithic and late EB I pottery) found in this stratum must have been brought up from the strata underneath, probably through (post-depositional) activities of animal scavengers (Horwitz, forthcoming). The underlying Stratum II, c. 0.60 m thick, consisted of a featureless, light brown soil matrix, dated by the ceramic sherds to the late EB I (see Chap. 7). In its upper levels (L128a) some Intermediate Bronze Age sherds were uncovered (Chap. 8) without, however, any stratigraphic distinction having been observed. The only stratigraphic break within this stratum was a level of limestone debris fallen from the cave’s ceiling (L128b), probably the result of a tremor. An earthquake most probably also accounted for the accumulation of numerous large limestone boulders in the southern part of the cave having fallen from the ceiling (Fig. 3.17). A general horizon representing this event, comprised of concentrations of both bigger and smaller stone debris, was actually observed in all the caves. We succeeded in removing only a small number of the boulders. Wherever this collapse was removed, Chalcolithic burial remains (Stratum I) immediately appeared.

Stratigraphy The cave, filled to the ceiling with natural soil mixed with anthropogenic material, was completely excavated down to bedrock, apart from portions in the southern part of the cave, due to massive roof collapse debris in that area (see Plan 3.7) and its precarious state of preservation. There was also a danger of roof collapse around the crevice in the northeastern part of the cave (L176). In contrast to the near open-air conditions while excavating Cave 1 (most of its roof had collapsed in antiquity), the excavation of Cave 2, with roof still intact, proved physically more demanding. First, a small area at the foot of the ‘stairs’ leading into the cave (see Fig. 3.15) had to be cleared in order to create space to maneuver and, in the process, to get a first impression of the stratigraphic build-up of both natural and anthropogenic deposits inside the cave. Working our way carefully towards the cave’s eastern end, it was decided to construct a heavy iron frame to support the ceiling thus far exposed, because of the danger of roof collapse. Considering the limited space available in the cave (see Plan 3.7), this seriously hampered standard excavation procedures.

18

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Plan 3.7. Cave 2. Plan and north–south section.

The absence of any structural features in Stratum II, combined with the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the ceramic finds of both the late EB I and the Intermediate Bronze Age, lend support to the interpretation that we are dealing here with accumulated domestic waste, rather than the use of this cave for actual dwelling purposes.

Immediately below the Stratum II deposits, and down to bedrock, was a c. 0.50 m thick layer consisting of light brown-yellowish soil (Stratum I). Only in the southern part of the cave, where stone collapse had sealed off underlying remains, was this stratum left unexposed. It was evenly distributed over the cave’s surface, containing the very fragmented remains of at

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

19

Fig. 3.16. Cave 2. Central part of Cave 2 after removal of Str. III (L127) while exposing Str. II (L128a/b). Looking east.

Cave 3 (Plan 3.8; Fig. 3.18)

Fig. 3.17. Cave 2, L128a/b. View to the east showing large boulders fallen from ceiling, sealing Str. I burial deposits in southeastern part of cave.

least 35 Chalcolithic ceramic ossuaries (ossuary jars as well as rectangular ossuaries; see below, Chap. 4) and associated finds (below, Chaps. 6 and 9). A deep pit (Plan 3.7: Loci 182 and 183) had been cut into the bedrock floor, in front of the northeasternmost niche in the cave. Numerous ossuary fragments, better preserved (that is to say, larger) than in the rest of the cave, had been swept in. Behind this pit a natural crevice (Plan 3.7: L176) in the eastern wall of the cave gives access to Cave 4 (see below).

Description This is a large cave, measuring c. 21 × 18 m, with a maximum height of c. 2.5 m. It is the only one which had not been completely filled with an accumulation of natural soils, and the cave could be traversed from one side to the other in near-upright position (Plan 3.8; Fig. 3.18). There is a large natural aperture through its ceiling in the northwestern ‘corner’ of the cave, and a smaller one in its northeastern part. The southern part of the roof had collapsed in antiquity, today giving the impression that the cave is separated by an open space from the adjoining Cave 4, which once must have been an integral part of it before it caved in (see Fig. 3.25). The southwestern part of the roof had also caved-in in antiquity. Some of the stone debris in this area was removed mechanically and the fill below it was subsequently excavated manually down to bedrock. Only natural accumulations of soil, devoid of anthropogenic materials, were exposed here. Stratigraphy Due to time and budget constraints, only the southern part of the cave was investigated by means of three small probes (Plan 3.8: A–C; total surface exposure: 10 sq m). The probes were excavated down to bedrock, revealing only layers of natural soils and stone collapse

20

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

from the ceiling, with sporadic sherds dating mainly to the Early Islamic period, although a few Chalcolithic specimens were encountered here as well. The latter could easily have derived from the adjoining Cave 4. It is, therefore, assumed that the cave had been used during the Early Islamic period only, perhaps as some kind of shelter.

Fig. 3.18. Cave 3, with Probe A in iforeground to the right. Looking north.

Plan 3.8. Cave 3: Plan showing Probes A–C. Cave 4: Plan showing Sqs 1, 1b, 2, 3, 3b and 4; Sections 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3.

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

21

Cave 4 (Plans 3.8, 3.9; Figs. 3.19–3.29) Description Continuing to strip the surface area of its original soil cover, north and northwest of Caves 1 and 2, and clearing solution channels and bedrock pockets in search of access routes to other possible caves, we found one vertical solution channel, c. 0.45 m wide, which led obliquely down into the northwestern corner (L130) of an, until then, unknown cave (Cave 4; see Plan 3.8; Fig. 3.19). This cave measures c. 15 × 12 m and is on average 2.5–2.75 m high, in places reaching 3.5 m (Plan 3.8: Sections 1-1, 2-2, 3-3; Fig. 3.20). The roof, varying in thickness between 1 and 3 m, was still intact, with a natural supporting pillar left in its central-eastern part, in effect dividing the eastern half of the cave into two separate areas (Plan 3.8: Sqs 1b and 3b; Figs. 3.21– 3.23). A c. 1 m wide aperture in the southwestern corner of the cave ascended to Cave 2 (Fig. 3.24). In contrast to Caves 1 and 2, soil deposits had not accumulated up to the cave’s ceiling and it was possible, prior to the excavations, to crawl back and forth in the cave. Apart from a small area near the southwestern wall of the cave, behind Loci 213, 226 and 288 (Plan 3.8), Cave 4 was excavated manually down to bedrock in the course of two seasons of excavation.

Fig. 3.20. Cave 4. Northern face of southern balk of Sq 2 (see Plan 3.8: Section 1-1). Looking south.

Fig. 3.19. Cave 4. Solution channel leading into Cave 4, exposed after mechanical removal of central part of roof. Looking east.

Fig. 3.21. Cave 4. Squares 3b to the left, and 1b to the right, of pillar (see Plan 3.9: Section 2-2). Looking east.

22

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

In order to find a more convenient entry to the cave, part of the caved-in area between Caves 3 and 4, ‘outside’ and immediately north of Cave 4, was excavated to bedrock (Fig. 3.25). This was based on the assumption that this particular area (Loci 135, 145 and 158) had originally formed part of a single cave, caved-in in antiquity, thus creating the impression of two separate caves. After removing the hard, compact sterile soil deposits here, a natural, c. 2.5 m wide aperture in the northwestern wall of Cave 4 (L151) was

indeed exposed that originally gave access to the area now labeled Cave 3. Prior to the second season (dedicated to further excavation of Cave 4 alone) it was decided to mechanically remove the central part of the roof, in

Fig. 3.22. Cave 4. Squares 1 and 1b to the right of pillar. Looking south.

Fig. 3.23. Cave 4. Squares 3 and 3b to the left of pillar. Looking east.

Fig. 3.24. Cave 4 (Loci 223 and 234) looking west to Cave 2 (L176), after mechanical removal of roof and further manual excavation; view of western part of northern face of southern balk of Sq 4 (Plan 3.8: Section 3-3).

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

23

Fig. 3.25. Caved-in area connecting Cave 3 with Cave 4. In the background the balk of L145. Looking south.

part due to safety concerns, in part out of the desire to create better working conditions (fresh air and natural daylight) inside the cave. Stratigraphy The earliest remains, consisting of scattered pottery sherds possibly dating to the Early Chalcolithic period (see below, Chap. 6), were not distributed evenly throughout the cave. They were recovered over a limited area on bedrock in the northeastern part of the cave only, beneath L230 (see Plan 3.8), which contained the remains of ceramic ossuaries. No special features could be associated with the former remains. The first reuse of the cave, during the Late Chalcolithic period, is indicated by the very fragmentary remains of at least 22 ossuaries (ossuary jars as well as rectangular ossuaries) and associated pottery and groundstone artifacts (see Chaps. 4, 6 and 9), found throughout the cave, on and near bedrock level. Only a few burial remains were encountered still in situ, mainly in spots around the natural pillar in the eastern part of the cave (e.g., Plan 3.8: Loci 230, 233 [pit]). Two manmade pits (Loci 180, 181; Figs. 3.26, 3.27), which cut deep into the bedrock in the south-central part of the cave, contained many ossuary fragments and basalt pedestalled bowl fragments. These burial remains were locally sealed by heavy stone collapse, probably caused by an earthquake. A number of structural features in the northeastern part of the cave on top of

Fig. 3.26. Cave 4, L180. Man-made pit (in foreground) and southern face of balk (in background) separating Sq 3 from Sq 1. Looking north.

24

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

this collapse, including shelves cut into the cave wall and a circular stone-built fireplace (Plan 3.9: Sections 1-1, 2-2), dated by two 14C samples to c. 4000 BCE (below, Chap. 15), attest to a second reuse of the cave still during the Late Chalcolithic for dwelling purposes. The fragmentary and incomplete state of preservation of the underlying burial materials, together with an almost total absence of human skeletal remains, indicates that the cave must have been cleared during this second phase of reuse. The accumulated debris belonging to this later phase contained large quantities

of fragmented Late Chalcolithic pottery, relatively few flints (see below, Chap. 10) and many animal bones (Horwitz, forthcoming). In the southwestern part of the cave a number of pits (Plan 3.8: Loci 213, 214, 216, 226, 235, 288), dated mainly by the presence of

Fig. 3.27. Cave 4, L180. Man-made pit. View from above, after excavation.

Plan 3.9. Cave 4. Plan and sections of fireplace.

Fig. 3.28. Cave 4. Square 4 from roof of Cave 4 with pit L216 in background, opposite northern face of southern balk (see Plan 3.8: Section 3-3). Looking south.

CHAPTER 3: THE EXCAVATION

25

Fig. 3.29. Cave 4. Northern face of southern balk of Sq 4 (see Plan 3.8: Section 3-3) with pit L216 in foreground. Looking south.

a few Gray Burnished Ware sherds (see Fig. 7.1:2–5) to an early phase of EB I, cut through the Chalcolithic deposits down to bedrock (Figs. 3.28, 3.29). Above this early EB I level of reuse, many Intermediate Bronze Age storage-jar fragments (see Fig. 8.3) were

found concentrated in the area of Sq 2, close to the aperture opening onto Cave 3. No features were found associated with them, and this part of the cave had probably been used for refuse disposal during the Intermediate Bronze Age.

NOTES 1

The ceiling over the westernmost part of the cave had caved in; only after mechanical removal of the collapsed roof was it possible to excavate this part of the cave down to bedrock. 2 Among the material recovered from L152b are four Chalcolithic groundstone fragments, including an intact limestone palette, a fragment of a basalt, fenestrated pedestal

bowl and two fragments of basalt bowls (below, Chap. 9), probably deriving originally from the burials in L122. 3 The exact map reference for this cave, inferred from the coincidental presence of a triangulation grid point on the bedrock surface above the cave (at 91.46 m asl), is OIG 144821.54/157270.54.

REFERENCES Gophna R. and Beit-Arieh I. 1997. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Lod (80). Jerusalem.

Horwitz L.K. Forthcoming. The Faunal Remains from Late Chalcolithic–Bronze Age Dwelling and Burial Caves at Shoham (North), Lod Valley. ‘Atiqot.

26

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

a

27

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

CHAPTER 4

THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

INTRODUCTION From the Late Chalcolithic period onward, postdepositional processes resulting from human, animal and other natural agents have seriously affected the archaeological record in every cave excavated at Shoham (N). The direct association of ceramic receptacles (ossuaries) with human bones and associated finds, mainly pottery, in undisturbed contexts was present only in Cave 1, L122 (for funerary pottery associated with this burial locus, see Table 6.3), in a few baskets from Cave 2, L129, and in a few minor loci in Cave 4 (see Chap. 3). However, the custom of secondary burials in organic (basketry), pottery, and much less frequently, stone receptacles, carefully deposited in multiple, collective burial caves during the Late Chalcolithic, is well recorded, especially in the regions on either side of the central coastal plain, the kurkar ridges to the west and the limestone foothills of the Shephelah to the east (see below, Excursus 1). The nearest burial sites contemporary with Shoham (N) include Ben Shemen (Perrot 1967) and Qula (West) (Milevski and Shevo 1999; Milevski 2001a, b). Perrot and Ladiray’s (1980) typology of Late Chalcolithic bone containers or ossuaries facilitates the attribution of even relatively small fragments of ossuaries found ex situ to general ossuary types. Stone ossuaries (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:28–29; Classe I) are absent at Shoham (N);1 the focus here is on ceramic ossuaries. The ossuaries found in Caves 1, 2 and 4 can be divided into three main groups: 1. Rectangular ‘domiform’ ossuaries, with an opening (‘door’) in the front (façade) of the receptacle (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:28–35; Classe II). 2. ‘Primary’ ossuary jars, i.e., ‘domed’ jars usually crowned by a knob, with an aperture in the shoulder area of the vessel and clearly intended, from their very inception, for use as bone containers (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:29, 36–37; Classe III, Table I:h).

3. ‘Secondary’ ossuary containers, i.e., ceramic vessels of various types (holemouth jars, basins and large ‘V-shaped’ bowls) also attested in non-funerary, domestic contexts and not necessarily intended per se as bone receptacles. Minimum numbers (MNI) of 35 rectangular ossuaries, 32 primary ossuary jars and 18 secondary ossuary containers were established for the three caves. Only a few of these could be fully restored. Following is a brief presentation of the material per cave (Table 4.1) and selected features of the ossuaries. (For a discussion of mat impressions on some of the ossuary bases, see Chap. 5; for pottery finds, other than ossuaries, directly or indirectly associated with these burials, see Chap. 6). Table 4.1. Distribution of Ceramic Ossuary Types Per Cave Cave

MNI of Rectangular Ossuaries

MNI of Primary Ossuary Jars

MNI of Secondary Ossuary Receptacles

1

5

5

6

2

12

23

12

4

18

4 (perhaps 7?)

-

THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES OF CAVE 1, L122 (Figs. 4.1–4.4; Table 4.2) Eleven ceramic ossuaries were uncovered in situ, one next to the other (see Plan 3.6; Figs. 3.7–3.10). They include five primary ossuary jars (Figs. 4.1, 4.2),2 three of which are crowned by some kind of knob (Figs. 4.1:1; 4.2:3, 4), and six secondary ossuary receptacles (Figs. 4.3, 4.4:9–13), including two medium-sized ‘Vshaped’ bowls (Fig. 4.3:6, 7) and a large basin (Fig. 4.3:8), a holemouth jar with two triangular lug handles (Fig. 4.4:9, 10) and two short-necked jars (Fig. 4.4:11, 12). Fragments of five (MNI) rectangular (domiform) ossuaries were found either associated directly with L122 (Fig. 4.4:14, 15) or deriving from fills from other parts of Cave 1.3

28

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Apart from human bone remains (below, Chap. 11) and additional funerary pottery (see Table 6.3), four groundstone artifacts were also associated with these burials: fragments of three basalt vessels and a limestone palette (below, Chap. 9). Description and Brief Discussion of the Ossuaries from Cave 1 Fig. 4.1:1. A primary ossuary jar with a round opening in the shoulder region. Its ‘dome’ is crowned by a rather non-typical, near-square knob. The upper two-thirds of the jar bear a red-painted, monochrome design. The filling of the space between two horizontal bands with a painted zigzag line is repeated on a rectangular ossuary uncovered in Cave 2 (Fig. 4.6:2). Fig. 4.1:2. A primary ossuary jar, only the upper part of which could be restored. It has a round opening in the shoulder region, with a broad, flaring rim. The construction method of this specific receptacle, which lacks a knob, is very similar to that used for large churns (C. Commenge, pers. comm.). Fig. 4.2:3. A small primary ossuary with a round opening at the shoulder, and a knob crowning its dome (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Classe IIIc). The aperture is flanked by two(?) vertical, perforated lug handles for securing a lid. Further examples of primary, domed ossuary jars with small lug handles around the opening were uncovered at Kissufim Road (Goren and Fabian 2002:38; Figs. 4.10–4.11). Fig. 4.2:4. Only the top of yet another primary ossuary jar, crowned by a now-missing knob adjoined by (two?) pairs of animal horns. Similar configurations were uncovered at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 119; 121:1). Fig. 4.2:5. A body sherd, possibly from a primary ossuary jar, as the pattern of deeply incised lines on the sherd’s exterior, applied before firing of the vessel, calls to mind a similarly incised ossuary jar deriving from Mesillat Ziyyon (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 143:3; 144:1). Fig. 4.3:6, 7. Two medium-sized open bowls, both with red-painted rims, each of which contained human skeletal remains. This type of bowl is ubiquitous at both mortuary and dwelling sites from this period. Fig. 4.3:8. A large basin with straight walls and an out-flaring rim. It contained the skull and some long

bones of a human individual. These large, open basins are best known from dwelling contexts, for example at Abu Matar in the northern Negev (CommengePellerin 1987: Fig. 21:1). Fig. 4.4:9, 10. A secondary ossuary receptacle in the shape of a holemouth jar with two perforated, triangular lug handles placed vertically on the shoulder. This type is well known from dwelling contexts (for example Abu Matar, see CommengePellerin 1987: Fig. 29:3, Pl. VI:2). Fig. 4.4:11. A secondary ossuary receptacle in the shape of a large necked jar, more commonly found in dwelling contexts. Fig. 4.4:12. A secondary ossuary receptacle in the shape of a large, short-necked jar (rim intentionally broken off) with two vertically set, perforated, redpainted lug handles. These jars appear most commonly in dwelling contexts (for example Bir es-Safadi; Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 42:4–6). Fig. 4.4:13. The base of yet another secondary ossuary receptacle, found not far from the main burial locus (L122) in Cave 1. It still contained some human bones. Fig. 4.4:14. The upper, left corner of the aperture in the façade of a rectangular ossuary. The ‘door jamb’ and ‘door lintel’ carry a pre-firing incised design, painted over with vertical red bands. A similar incised design (décor incisé de chevrons) appears on the front side of a rectangular ossuary from Bené Beraq (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 141; 142:1). Another example, thus far unpublished, derives from Peqi‘in Cave in the northern Galilee. A similar chevron pattern, albeit painted, on the ‘door jambs’ of a rectangular ossuary was uncovered at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 109:5; 110:7). Fig. 4.4:15. Part of the roof of a rectangular ossuary(?). The one large pottery fragment can be described as a ‘scoop’, convex in section, with a flattened oblique rim. The sides of the scoop are not parallel, but narrow towards one end, suggesting that this is the distal part of an ossuary roof. The exterior is red painted.4 Some ossuaries from the recently excavated site at Peqi‘in were built up as complete volumes and then the upper part of the ossuary was separated, forming a lid or a roof.

29

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

1

0

2

Fig. 4.1. Cave 1, L122. Ossuary jars.

20

30

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

3 0

20

4

5 0

10

Fig. 4.2. Cave 1, L122. Ossuary jars.

6

8

7

0

10

Fig. 4.3. Cave 1, L122. Ossuary bowls.

31

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

10 9

11

12

0

13

15

14 0

2

Fig. 4.4. Cave 1, L122. Ossuary jars and fragment of rectangular ossuary.

10

32

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Table 4.2. Inventory of Ossuaries from Cave 1, Locus 122 Type

Basket

Remarks

Parallels

Ossuary jar

1144

Many small black grits; few white grits; painted

Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980 (Classe IIIk): Fig. 65:3

4.1: 1

Ossuary jar

1123

Medium-sized black and white grits

Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980 (Classe IIIa): Fig. 113:2

4.1:2

Small ossuary jar

1124

2(?) lug handles

For (lug) handles around opening of ossuary jars, see Goren and Fabian 2002:38; Figs. 4.10, 4.11

4.2:3

Ossuary jar fragment

1151

Knob missing; with horns (?)

Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 119; 121(?)

4.2:4

Ossuary jar(?) fragment

1075

Incised decoration

Mesillat Ziyyon: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 143:3; 144:1

4.2:5

V-shaped bowl/ ossuary bowl

1154

Red painted

4.3:6

V-shaped bowl/ ossuary bowl

1139

Red painted

4.3:7

Large basin/ ossuary bowl

1150

Many small black grits

Abu Matar: Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 21:1

4.3:8

Holemouth/ ossuary jar

1135

2 vertical handles

Abu Matar (Str. IA): Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 29:3; Pl. VI:2

4.4:9

Handle of jar

1143

Possibly belonging to L122/B1135

4.4:10

Ossuary jar

1126

Medium-sized black grits

4.4:11

Ossuary jar

1129

Many small black grits; 2 painted lug handles

Ossuary jar base

Bir es-Safadi: Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 42:4–6

1288.04

Fig.

4.4:12 4.4:13

Rectangular ossuary fragment

1121

Incised decorated door jamb

Rectangular ossuary fragment

1136

Roof fragment

THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES OF CAVE 2, L129 (Figs. 4.5–4.12; Tables 4.3, 4.4) The fragmentary and incomplete remains of at least 23 ossuary jars and 12 rectangular ossuaries were retrieved,5 together with a few human bones (below, Chap. 11), six groundstone artifacts (including four basalt vessel fragments and a limestone pendant or token; see below, Chap. 9) and various pottery vessels (see Table 6.5). The finds were dispersed over the cave’s bedrock floor, in the center as well as in the back of the cave, in three natural niches and a man-made pit (Loci 182 and 183) cut into the bedrock (see Plan 3.7). The scattered and fragmentary nature of the finds is due in part to massive roof collapse resulting from an earthquake, as well as later reuse of the cave during the late EB I for domestic purposes (see below, Chap. 7).

Bené Beraq: Perrot and Ladiray 1980 (Classe II): Figs. 141; 142:1

4.4:14 4.4:15

Rectangular (‘Domiform’) Ossuaries (Figs. 4.5–4.8; Table 4.3) Fragments of at least 12 rectangular ceramic ossuaries were recovered on bedrock inside the cave (L129 and related ex situ loci, L128 and L127). Only two of these (Figs. 4.5, 4.6) could be restored to their original state. All relevant diagnostic sherds show that the roof and walls of the ossuaries were made and fired as a single unit, that is, the roof had not been separated (string-cut) from the walls. In the absence of any ‘leg’ fragments it can be assumed that the ossuaries rested on a flat base. A number of bases have mat impressions (see below, Chap. 5). Most of the ossuaries uncovered at Shoham have counterparts in the Chalcolithic burial caves at Azor and Ben Shemen, as summarized below in Table 4.3. The ossuary in Fig. 4.5:1 represents a type which

33

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

1

0

10

Fig. 4.5. Cave 2, L129. Rectangular ossuary.

was also encountered in Cave 4 (see Fig. 4.13:1). The example in Fig. 4.7:3 is the only rectangular ossuary with a façade decorated with applied clay ‘nails’ found outside Cave 4, where this type of application is relatively frequent (see Figs. 4.13:2; 4.14:8–12). The ossuary in Fig. 4.7:4 represents a type also attested at Ben Shemen and called by its excavators ‘domiform’ (ossuaire en forme de maison; Perrot and Ladiray

1980:86). The fragment represented in Fig. 4.8:10 is the only certain instance of a sculpted nose applied to the façade of a rectangular ossuary. A wall fragment (of a façade?) has applied rope decoration (Fig. 4.8:11), a feature not uncommon to Chalcolithic ossuaries of this type, as at e.g., Azor and Ben Shemen (cf. Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 18, 19, 28, 29, 40, 41, 50, 51, 82, 85).

34

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

2

0

Fig. 4.6. Cave 2, L129. Rectangular ossuary.

3

0

10

0

5

4

Fig. 4.7. Cave 2, L129. Rectangular ossuary fragments.

10

35

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

5

0

10

7

6 0

10

8

9

10 11

0

10

Fig. 4.8. Cave 2, L129. Rectangular ossuary fragments.

10

36

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Table 4.3. Inventory of Rectangular Ossuaries from Cave 2, L129 (N = 134 fragments)* Type

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels

Ossuary

129

1443

Horizontal rope bands

Shoham (N), Cave 4: L225/B2102; Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 18, 191

4.5:1

Ossuary

129

1551

Holes instead of ‘handles’; painted

Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 42:2 and 53:52

4.6:2

Ossuary

129

1472

Small black grits; 7 nail heads; painted

Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Table IX:e

4.7:3

Ossuary

129

1440

Domiform

Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 86

4.7:4

Ossuary

129

-

‘Fronton ogival’ as per Ben Shemen; painted

Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 63:11; 67:5;3 see also Ben Shemen for the painted mouth: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 92, 93

4.8:5

Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 43:1

Ossuary

129

1382

‘Shouldered’ (and fronton echancré?)

Ossuary

129

1472

Door fragment

Ossuary

129

1568

Painted; lug handle above door

Small ossuary

128

-

Painted

Ossuary

128

1082

Nose

Ossuary

129

1568

Rope decoration

Fig.

4.8:6 4.8:7

Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 105, 106; for the painted design see Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 64:8

4.8:8

4.8:9 e.g., Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 120:2

4.8:10 4.8:11

* and related ex situ finds from L128, L127. 1 The Azor specimen differs from the Shoham example in that it has finger-impressed rope decoration on both long sides; since the façade in the Azor example is incomplete it is difficult to tell whether it had only one or, like the Shoham example, two horizontally applied rope bands above the door. It conforms with the Shoham example in that it has small lug handles, one on each of the two ‘door jambs’, as well as a ledge immediately below the door. The measurements of both ossuaries are nearly identical. 2 The Azor example also has punctured holes instead of lug handles. Unlike the Shoham example (which has a hole at each of the four corners of the door), the Azor example appears to have only two holes. Even the mode of painting is the same on both examples, as is the overall shape of the ossuaries. Do these similarities suggest the hand of one and the same artisan? The only difference between the two examples seems to be the way in which the indentations along the sides of the long walls were executed. The Azor indented bands are paralleled on yet another example from Shoham, see Fig. 4.8:5. 3 Note that Perrot describes this fragment as the back part of the ossuary. Since in our example part of the door has been preserved, the Shoham example can be positively identified as the front side (façade).

Ossuary Jars (Figs. 4.9–4.12; Table 4.4) Diagnostic fragments of at least 23 primary ossuary jars were uncovered in Cave 2. In 11 cases their domes are crowned by one of two types of knobs: (a) bouton; (b) languette carrée (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:28– 29; Classe III, Table I:f, k). Note that at Shoham the Type a knobs appear to come in three standardized sizes (according to the diameter of the top of the knob): small (4.5 cm), medium (5–5.5 cm) and large (7 cm). In the absence of complete ossuary jars, it is not possible to know whether this correlates to overall size of complete vessels. In at least 12 instances, open ceramic vessels were used as secondary burial containers. The clay of these

vessels is well levigated and well fired; they have short necks, invariably with red-painted designs (Figs. 4.11, 4.12). The motif of applied pair(s) of animal (ibex?) horns on the upper part of ossuary jars has been attested on four, possibly five examples deriving from Cave 2, L129.6 In three cases the horns appear on the aperture rim of a primary ossuary jar (Fig. 4.9), in another case they apparently adjoin the knob of a primary ossuary jar (Fig. 4.10:4). In the fifth case they appear below the rim of a secondary ossuary jar (Fig. 4.11:13). Similar pair(s) of horns were attached to the crowning knobs (both Types a and b) of primary ossuary jars at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 113:4;

37

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

1

2

0

5

3

Fig. 4.9. Cave 2, L129. Primary ossuary jar fragments.

119:4–10; 120:10–12, 14–15). The motif of applied (ibex) horns also appears on the façades of rectangular ossuaries, as, for instance, at Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 63:9), Qula (West) (Milevski 2001a) and in Caves T510 and T516 at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 101–106; 109:1–2; 110:2–3; 118:4; 119:4–10). Note that in both Caves T510 and T516 rectangular ossuaries and primary ossuary jars adorned with pairs of horns occur together. Pairs of applied animal horns also appear on the exterior of various types of other Chalcolithic ceramic vessels, for instance fenestrated bowls and Golanite pithoi (Epstein 1998:168, 169; Pls. 22–24). Description and Brief Discussion of the Ossuary Jars from Cave 2 Fig. 4.9:1. A rim fragment in the style of a miniature façade usually decorating rectangular ossuaries (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:36; Table VIII:o). This incompletely preserved fragment features two impressed eyes and an applied nose; to the right of this face a pair of animal horns was applied. Both the face and the pair of horns

were painted over in red. The symmetrical arrangement of two pairs of similar animal horns flanking an applied nose on the façade of a rectangular ossuary was uncovered at Bené Beraq (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 141; 142:2). The same combination appears on the exterior of a fenestrated bowl published by Epstein (1995:67 [left]). It can be assumed that originally the Shoham specimen also was flanked by pairs of animal horns. The combination of a sculpted human nose, painted eyes and a superimposed pair of horns on a façade of a rectangular ossuary was found at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 82, 83). The motif of a sculpted human nose and two impressed eyes (as in Fig. 4.9:1) occurs on rectangular ossuary façades recovered at Hadera (Sukenik 1937: Fig. 10; Pl. 4:2), Kibbutz Ma‘abarot (Porath, in press: Figs. 14a–c) and Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 48, 49). Fig. 4.9:2. A rim fragment of a primary ossuary jar with a pair of applied animal horns, painted over in red (cf. Perrot and Ladiray 1980:36; Table VIII:h).

38

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

4 5

6 8

7

9

12

10 11 0

10

Fig. 4.10. Cave 2, L129. Primary ossuary jar fragments.

Fig. 4.9:3. A red-painted rim fragment of a primary ossuary jar with a pair of animal horns now partly broken off. The same motif also appears on the inner side of the rim of an ossuary jar uncovered at Bené Beraq (Kaplan 1963: Fig. 7:5; Pl. 33 A).7

Fig. 4.10:4–8. The top parts of five primary ossuary domes crowned by Type a knobs with red-painted monochrome designs. Numbers 4 and 5 also have part of their rims preserved. In the case of No. 4 it is clear that something was originally attached to the front-side

39

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

13

14

15 0

10

Fig. 4.11. Cave 2, L129. Secondary ossuary jars.

40

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

of the knob. In view of the frequent presence in this particular cave of both primary and secondary ossuary jars with applied animal horns, a pair of horns had probably been attached here. Similar specimens were uncovered at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 119:4–6, 8, 9; 120:11, 12. For another possible application see Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 46:1; 57:2). An interior view of No. 4 shows how the knob was applied and secured to the dome of the vessel. Fig. 4.10:9–12. The top parts of four separate primary ossuary domes crowned by Type b ‘knob-like’ elements (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:36 languette) with varying, red-painted designs. Fig. 4.11:13. The upper part of a secondary ossuary receptacle. The short-necked jar has a red-painted rim and a pair of red-painted ibex horns applied immediately below the rim on the jar’s shoulder.

Fig. 4.11:14. A short-necked, secondary ossuary jar with a rolled rim and two small, vertically applied, perforated lug handles on its shoulder, possibly used for securing a lid (not recovered). The vessel has a redpainted design consisting of a combination of straight vertical bands and wavy lines. Fig. 4.11:15. A short-necked, secondary ossuary jar with a flaring rim and a red-painted design consisting of parallel oblique bands and at least two bands applied perpendicular to one of these oblique lines. Since only a fragment of this jar is preserved it is impossible to know whether the jar originally had lug handles or not. Fig. 4.12. Various rim fragments of red-painted, shortnecked, secondary ossuary jars comparable to those represented in Fig. 4.11:14, 15.

18 16

17

20

19

21

24

23 22 0

10

Fig. 4.12. Cave 2, L129. Secondary ossuary jar fragments.

Table 4.4. Inventory of Ossuary Jars from Cave 2, L129 (N = 194 fragments)* Type

Locus

Basket

Primary ossuary jar

129

1437

Primary ossuary jar

129

Primary ossuary jar

129

Primary ossuary jar, Type a knob/door

129

1440

Primary ossuary jar, Type a knob/door

129

1340

Painted

4.10:5

Primary ossuary jar, Type a knob

129

1436

Painted

4.10:6

* and related ex situ finds.

Description

Parallels

Fig.

Human face and horns; painted

4.9: 1

1472

Horns; painted

4.9: 2

-

‘Eyed’ horns; painted

4.9: 3 Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Classe IIIm: Figs. 46:1; 57:2)1

4.10: 4

41

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

Table 4.4. (cont.). Type

1

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels

Fig.

Small primary ossuary jar

129

1437.5

Painted

4.10:7

Small primary ossuary jar

129

1380

Painted

4.10:8

Primary ossuary jar, Type b knob/door

129

1094

Languette carrée; painted

4.10: 9

Primary ossuary jar, Type b knob/door

129

-

Languette carrée; painted

4.10:10

Primary ossuary jar, Type b knob

129

-

Languette carrée

Primary ossuary jar, Type b short knob

129

1531

Languette carrée; painted

Type? knob

129

1552

-

Type? knob

129

1379

-

Type? knob (med.)

129

1472

-

Type? knob (med.)

128

1514

-

Type? knob (med.)

129

-

-

Type? knob (small)

129

-

-

Type? knob (small)

128

1487

-

Type? knob

129

1490

-

Type? knob

128

1312

-

Type? short knob

129

1532

-

Type? knob/door

129

1441

-

Secondary ossuary jar

129

1441.39

Horns above door; painted

Secondary ossuary jar

129

1550

Globular jar with small lug handle(s); painted

Ben Shemen (T510): Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 126:83

4.11:14

Secondary ossuary jar

129

1551

Painted

Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 42:3–6

4.11:15

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

-

Painted

4.12:16

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

1472.14

Painted

4.12:17

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

1476.3

Painted

4.12:18

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

-

Painted

4.12:19

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

1531.6

Painted

4.12:20

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

-

Painted

4.12:21

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

127

1204.1

Painted

4.12:22

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

127

1239

Painted

4.12:23

Rim fragment, secondary ossuary jar

129

1568.16

Painted

4.12:24

Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:36, Classe IIIf; Fig. 113:12

4.10:11

4.10:12

4.11:13

Note, however, the absence of a handle/handles, perhaps because it is only a fragment of a jar? Either a Type a knob with a sculpted nose attached to it, or one has to reconstruct a pair of (ibex) horns, see Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 119:6. 3 Couronnement de jarre-ossuaire en forme de languette carrée. 2

42

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES OF CAVE 4 (VARIOUS LOCI) (Figs. 4.13–4.15; Table 4.5) The Chalcolithic remains derive from at least two separate strata. Fragments of rectangular ossuaries and human bones were found on bedrock, rarely in situ. In

one case the burial remains were sealed by a circular, stone-built hearth or fireplace (see Plan 3.9), yielding two 14C dates of c. 4000 BCE (see below, Chap. 15), also associated with Chalcolithic pottery and a number of Canaanean flint blades (see below, Chaps. 10, 16), indicating a domestic reuse of this cave. However, a

1

2

3

0

4

20

6

0

5

7 0

20

Fig. 4.13. Cave 4, various loci. Rectangular ossuary fragments.

10

43

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

strict separation between the two strata throughout the cave—burials and associated finds, including pottery, stone palettes, a few pendants/tokens and several basalt vessels on the one hand, and dwelling debris on the other—was not possible. The picture is further complicated by the presence of numerous pits, which penetrate these layers down to bedrock. These

8

pits apparently date from the early EB I, based on the presence of a few Gray Burnished Ware sherds in some of the pits in the southwestern part of the cave (see Plan 3.8: Sq 4). Rectangular (‘Domiform’) Ossuaries (Figs. 4.13, 4.14) In contrast to Caves 1 and 2, rectangular ossuaries are predominant in Cave 4 (MNI 18). Many diagnostic façade fragments show the application of ceramic ‘nail heads’ (cf. Perrot and Ladiray 1980:37, Table IX). Most of the ossuaries uncovered in Cave 4 have counterparts in the Chalcolithic burial caves at Azor and Ben Shemen, as summarized in Table 4.5.

9

12

11 10

0

13

10

14

Fig. 4.14. Cave 4, various loci. Rectangular ossuary jar fragments.

Table 4.5. Inventory of Rectangular Ossuary Fragments and Ossuary Jars from Cave 4 Type

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels

Fig.

Façade/door

225

2102

Two horizontal ‘rope’ bands

Shoham (N), Cave 2: L129/B1443

4.13:1

Door

180

1597

4 nail heads

Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 43:1; 66:13

4.13:2

Door

185

2071

Corner fragment with jamb

4.13:3

Façade

209

2092

Applied rope decoration above door

4.13:4

Façade fragment

209

2092

Door fragment

232

2109

Ogival?

Unique door?/or backdoor as per Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 28, 29; see also Hadera (Sukenik 1937: Fig. 4)

4.13:6

Façade/door/roof

229

2103

‘Tanged’; painted

Perrot and Ladiray 1980: 34, Table VI:e (à l’arc brisé)

4.13:7

4.13:5

44

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Table 4.5 (cont.). Type

1

Locus

Basket

Description

Door corner

166

1417.1

1 nail head

Parallels

Fig.

Façade/door lintel

227

2099.22

2 nail-head imprints1

Façade corner

169

1467.1

3 nail heads

4.14:10

Façade corner

169

1575

3 nail heads

4.14:11

Façade corner

209

2082

Façade with 4 nail heads

4.14:12

Façade fragment

209

2092

3 nail heads

-

Façade fragment

232

2109

1 nail head

-

4.14:8 Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 40, 51

4.14:9

Façade fragment

206

2052

1 nail head

-

Door/nails

169

1467

2 nail-head imprints

-

Façade fragment

185

2271.65

Finger-impressed decoration

4.14:13

Door jamb

175

158?

Pierced lug ‘handle’

4.14:14

Ossuary jar

150

1222

Knob; painted

4.15:15

Ossuary jar?

151

1264

Concave knob (or top of a staff?)

-

Ossuary jar?

185

2071

Knob?

-

Ossuary jar

175

-

Rim; painted

4.15:16

Ossuary jar

175

1580.13

Rim; painted

4.15:17

Ossuary jar

172

1494.02

Rim; painted

4.15:18

Ossuary jar?

227

2099.103

Rim; painted

4.15:19

In addition to the imprints, five loose clay nail heads were retrieved.

Ossuary Jars (Fig. 4.15) Fragments of only four, perhaps seven, ossuary jars were found in Cave 4. Only one of these (Fig. 4.15:1) can be described with certainty as a primary ossuary jar, its dome crowned by a languette carrée (Perrot and Ladiray 1980).

0

10

15

17

16

18

19

Fig. 4.15. Cave 4, various loci. Ossuary jar fragments.

DISCUSSION Following analysis of the ossuary assemblages from each of the three caves separately, a number of observations can be made: In Cave 1, ossuary jars seem to outnumber rectangular, ‘domiform’ ossuaries. One should recall, however, the presence of a later, limekiln in the center of this burial cave (L116; see Chap. 3), which undoubtedly was responsible for partial removal of previous Chalcolithic burials deposited at this spot. In Cave 2, ossuary jars clearly outnumber rectangular ossuaries. The application of pairs of animal horns on ossuaries (in this case, on primary and secondary ossuary jars) seems restricted to this cave (with a single possible exception from Cave 1, L122, see Fig. 4.2:4). Even though Cave 4 yielded more rectangular ossuaries than Cave 2, the variety of these ‘domiform’ bone receptacles seems wider in Cave 2. In both caves specimens of at least two distinct ossuary types were present: one with a double rope decoration applied above the opening in one of the short walls of the

CHAPTER 4: THE CERAMIC OSSUARIES

receptacle (see Figs. 4.5:1 and 4.13:1); the other with applied clay ‘nails’ on the façade (see Figs. 4.7:3 and 4.14:8–12). Only one example of the latter was found in Cave 2. On the basis of stratigraphic data from Ben Shemen, especially from T510, Perrot suggested the possibility that the use of ossuary jars, as opposed to rectangular ossuaries, was a function of time (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:110): ...la preference pour les jarres ossuaires n’est pas à mettre en parallele avec un declin general de la periode pendant laquelle on utilise de preference les bassins ordinaires et les jarres communes. However, the presence of rectangular ossuaries side by side with primary ossuary jars at Shoham (N) and in at least six other Chalcolithic burial sites (Table 4.6) seems to negate this possibility. Table 4.6. Chalcolithic Burial Sites Containing Both Rectangular Ossuaries and Primary Ossuary Jars Crowned by a Knob Site

References

Sha‘ar Efrayim

Oren and Scheftelowitz 1998: Fig. 28:5

Bené Beraq

Ory 1946: Pl. 16.3:3, 7, 8; Kaplan 1963: Fig. 4:10

Giv‘atayim

Sussman and Ben-Arieh 1966: Fig. 4:3, 4

Shoham (N)

Chap. 4, this volume

Qula (W)

Milevski, forthcoming: Fig. 15:6, 7

Palmahim

Gophna and Lifshitz 1980: Fig. 3:1

Kissufim Road

Goren and Fabian 2002

In view of the still largely unpublished data from Peqi‘in Cave, where rectangular ossuaries as well as more open, secondary ossuary jars were used for (re)burials even in such an early mortuary context (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997, 1999), we would opt for a diametrically opposed view. We wonder whether the primary ossuaries, with their domed tops, are not the final, specialized shape of a class of ceramic bone receptacles which began with the use of common pottery jar shapes.

Additional Comments on the Shoham Ossuaries Catherine Commenge The selective and regional distribution of different types of ossuaries—stone or pottery cists, rectangular ossuaries and ossuary jars—proposed by Perrot and Ladiray (1980) has not been corroborated by evidence

45

from cemeteries investigated in the northern Negev (Levy 1987), nor by more recent data from burial caves excavated in the Galilee (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997; 1999). The stratigraphic evidence from T510 at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980) does not, so far, have parallels elsewhere. In the Shoham burial caves, the side-by-side presence of rectangular ossuaries and ossuary jars could actually emphasize a distinct (social not chronological) significance. Moreover, techniques involved in manufacturing the two types of ossuaries are different (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:110–111). This difference is clearly established (albeit macroscopically only) at Shoham, where there is evidence for two sources of clay procurement and probably even two distinct workshops, or at least two different production lines. All rectangular ossuaries are made of characteristic red clay (Munsell 2YR 6/:8, 2YR 5/8). This clay is probably related to hamra deposits whose natural grits could have been partially removed in order to achieve a better plasticity. In contrast, ossuary jars are made from a whitish, calcic clay, similar to the clay employed in manufacturing necked jars, in particular the largest examples. With the exception of the burial cave at Nahal Qana (Gopher and Tsuk 1996), inferences for social hierarchy are drawn from energy expenditure in tomb construction (Levy 1995:235), rather than from prestige grave goods associated with specific burials. Considering the exclusive ware and techniques involved in the production of rectangular ossuaries, they could thus be indicative of social status. Noticeable differences among ossuaries should not be dismissed as undecipherable amorphousness in grave-good patterning. A burial protocol for secondary burial rites related to social status, kinship, wealth and (or) gender cannot be ruled out. Such a protocol was revealed for secondary burials at Bir es-Safadi. Perrot mentioned multiple and secondary burials in a small, bell-shaped underground structure (otherwise empty) located immediately below the surface of the site (Perrot 1968). In this tomb (T655), three distinct secondary burials were found. The skulls had been laid on heaps of long bones, and in one case it was possible to identify the association of a man with a child. In another burial of the same tomb, a basin containing the complete skeleton of an infant had been placed among the remaining bones of a woman. The tomb did not yield any grave goods.

46

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

While interpretation of evidence for social status is still exploratory, it seems clear that differential placement, treatment and energy expenditure on ossuary construction inherent to secondary burial

rituals were implicit in Chalcolithic burials (Shanks and Tilley 1982). The differences observed between ossuaries at Shoham could represent one more, albeit small, step towards confirming this view.

NOTES 1 For Chalcolithic burial sites that did yield stone coffins, including the nearby site of Qula, only a few kilometers north of Shoham, see Fig. Exc. 1.3. 2 Two of these jars (Fig. 4.2:4, 5) are represented by a few pottery fragments only. 3 Besides the few fragments associated with L122 (see Fig. 4.4:14, 15), only nine additional fragments of rectangular ossuaries were found in Cave 1: L100/B1022.01; L152/ B1304.4; L152/B1327.1; L152/B1334.1–5; L152/B1350.1. For additional pottery vessels associated with L152, see Table 6.4. 4 The description of this particular item from Shoham was kindly provided by C. Commenge. 5 Since very few examples could be restored, the numbers presented here are minimum number of individual vessels

(MNI). For the ossuary jars the MNI is based on a simple counting of the distinctive knobs topping the jars. Note, however, that ossuary jars without knobs do exist as well (see Fig. 4.1:2) and, therefore, the jars are probably underrepresented. For the rectangular ossuaries, the MNI was calculated by counting such distinctive features as the corners of the rectangular apertures (doors), the external corners of the ossuaries themselves, the corners of façades etc., and dividing them by four. 6 For a possible example deriving from Cave 1, L122, see Fig. 4.2:4. 7 Kaplan (1963:307), however, describes these horns as snakes.

REFERENCES Brink E.C.M. van den. 1998. An Index to Chalcolithic Mortuary Caves in Israel. IEJ 48:165–173. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1987. La poterie d’Abou Matar et de l’Ouadi Zoumeili (Beershéva) au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 3). Paris. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1990. La poterie de Safadi (Beershéva) au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 5). Paris. Epstein C. 1995. Before History—the Golan’s Chalcolithic Heritage. BAR 21:54–59, 66–68. Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1997. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave in Peqi‘in, Upper Galilee. IEJ 47:145–154. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1999. New Iconographic Aspects of Chalcolithic Art: Preliminary Observations on Finds from the Peqi‘in Cave. ‘Atiqot 37:1–16. Gopher A. and Tsuk T. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 12). Tel Aviv. Gophna R. and Lifshitz S. 1980. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot 14:1–8. Goren Y. and Fabian P. 2002. Kissufim Road. A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site (IAA Reports 16). Jerusalem. Kaplan J. 1963. Excavations at Benei Braq 1951. IEJ 13:300– 312. Levy T.E. 1987. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984) (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford.

Levy T.E. 1995. Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies— Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4500–3500 B.C.E). In T.E. Levy ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Pp. 226–243. Milevski I. 2001a. Qula, Area J. HA–ESI 113:63*. Milevski I. 2001b. Qula, Area K. HA–ESI 113:62*–63*. Milevski I. Forthcoming. Excavations at Qula (West). ‘Atiqot. Milevski I. and Shevo E. 1999. Qula (West) 1997. HA–ESI 110:39*–41*. Oren R. and Scheftelowitz N. 1998. The Tel Te‘enim and Sha‘ar Ephraim Project. Tel Aviv 25:52–93. Ory J. 1946. A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Benei Beraq. QDAP 12:43–57. Perrot J. 1967. Les ossuaries de Ben Shemen. EI 8:46*–49*. Perrot J. 1968. La préhistoire palestinienne. Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 8. Paris. Pp. 286–446. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Porath Y. In press. Chalcolithic Cemeteries at Ma‘abarot and Tel Ifshar. ‘Atiqot. Jerusalem. Porath Y., Dar S. and Applebaum S. 1985. The History and Archaeology of Emek-Hefer. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Shanks M. and Tilley C. 1982. Ideology, Symbolic Power and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices. In I. Hodder ed. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge. Pp. 129–154. Sukenik E.L. 1937. A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Hederah. JPOS 17:15–30. Sussman V. and Ben-Arieh S. 1966. Ancient Burials at Giv‘atayim. ‘Atiqot (HS) 3:7–39 (Hebrew).

47

CHAPTER 5: MAT IMPRESSIONS ON CHALCOLITHIC OSSUARY BASES

CHAPTER 5

MAT IMPRESSIONS ON CHALCOLITHIC OSSUARY BASES TAMAR SCHICK

INTRODUCTION

The impression on the third fragment (Fig. 5.1:3), 8.5 × 8.5 cm, from L128 Basket 1298, is somewhat blurred, probably due to a deteriorated condition of the mat. However, a few details of the ‘positive’ suggest that the structure of the mat was a plain weave (Type 2), common in cloth production. The warp and weft elements were of different composition. The warp consisted of thin (c. 2 mm) cords that are hardly recognizable. The wefts comprised untwisted grass or rushes, 5–6 mm wide. The weft elements crossed over and under the warps in the basic 1/1 interval. The warps of such mats must have been stretched and tied to some kind of a frame, as the cords would not be rigid enough if untied. The diagonal effect in the impression may

During the 1994 and 1995 excavations of the burial complex at Shoham (North), fragments of pottery ossuaries from the Chalcolithic period were encountered (see above, Chap. 4). Among the base fragments from Caves 2 and 4 are a number that show clear mat impressions on the underside of the base. The impressions are a result of pressing a mass of wet clay against a mat, thus creating a negative imprint of the original. The use of mats by the potters probably facilitated the transfer of vessels to the kiln and helped keep the bases clean from dirt and stones. The impressions, especially the ‘positives’ that are made of them in plasticine, provide a great deal of information not only on the potter’s work, but also on the technology of mat-making, and on the diverse types of mats that were in use during the Chalcolithic period. It should be emphasized, however, that only one surface, or a ‘slice’ thereof, is ‘frozen’ in the impression. This can restrict the identification of the structure of the mat and its technique of manufacture.

1 0

2

IMPRESSIONS FROM CAVE 2 Three pottery fragments from this cave bear impressions, two of which seem to have come from a single ossuary. The two fragments originate from L129, Baskets 1423 and 1439 (Fig. 5.1:1, 2). The largest fragment measures 13 × 17 cm. Both are characterized by parallel incisions and shallow troughs that run perpendicular to the incisions. The structure of the mat (Type 1), as deduced from its impression, can be described as follows: the warps were reeds or rushes crowded together in parallel orientation. The wefts, probably plied cords, were spaced at intervals of 5 to 6 cm, passing through slits produced by splitting the warps. Ridges were formed in the mat by the concealed wefts (see Fig. 5.5:1).

3 2

0

Fig. 5.1. Cave 2. Mat impressions on ossuary bases. No.

Locus/Basket

Type

1

129/1423

1

2

129/1439

1

3

128/1298

2

4

48

TAMAR SCHICK

stem from a differentiation in the size and composition of the elements used in the warp and weft.

IMPRESSIONS FROM CAVE 4 Fourteen ossuary fragments with mat impressions were retrieved from Cave 4. According to the varied mat structures that appear on them, the fragments belong to at least three different ossuaries. Three fragments (Fig. 5.2), from L185 Basket 2071, L175 Basket 1588 and L230 Basket 2107, are of Type 1. The largest fragment is 21 × 9 cm. The impressions of the split reeds/rushes are deeply incised on the base, while the concealed wefts (twisted cords), spaced at c. 5 cm intervals, leave only shallow impressions and are hardly noticeable. Five fragments (Fig. 5.3) from L169 Baskets 1456 and 1482, L211 Basket 2023, L220 Basket 2088, and L232 Basket 2109, carry very clear impressions of a plain weave structure (Type 2). The largest fragment is 14 × 9 cm. The positives (Fig. 5.5:3, 4) show that the warps were ‘S’ well-twisted cords, 1–2 mm thick, set about 4–5 mm apart. The wefts were flat (or flattened) strands of plant material, 4–7 mm wide. The impressions suggest that the warps had been stretched and tied to a frame. In the manufacturing process of

1

1

2

0

3

Fig. 5.2. Cave 4. Type 1 mat impressions on ossuary bases. No.

Locus/Basket

1

185/2071

2

175/1588

3

230/2107

3

2 0

3

3

Fig. 5.3. Cave 4. Type 2 mat impressions on ossuary bases. No.

4

5

Locus/Basket

1

169/1456

2

169/1482

3

211/2023

4

220/2088

5

232/2109

49

CHAPTER 5: MAT IMPRESSIONS ON CHALCOLITHIC OSSUARY BASES

3

0

Fig. 5.4. Cave 4. Type 2A mat impressions on ossuary bases.

2

1

3

4

such a mat the warps remain ‘passive’, while the wefts are introduced manually in alternation over and under the warps, as in darning. The remaining fragments (Fig. 5.4), from L230 Basket 2107.1–2, L166 Basket 1412, L206 Basket 2068 and L220 Basket 2093, bear impressions in a honeycomb pattern (Type 2A). The largest fragment measures 16 × 14 cm. The structure of the mat and the technique of manufacture are the same as those of the Type 2 examples described above. However, thicker, rounded elements must have been used as wefts, almost preventing the warp from touching the wet clay (Figs. 5.4; 5.5:2).

DISCUSSION AND CORRELATIONS Mat impressions on the bases of Chalcolithic vessels and ossuaries from the southern Levant are a wellknown phenomenon.1 The topic has been discussed at length by G.M. Crowfoot (1938), summing up the then-known archaeological material from Jericho, Tuleilat Ghassul and Wadi Ghazzeh (Crowfoot 1938: Nn. 1–3). She also provides comparisons with modern mat-making, based on her study of the crafts of Judea and Samaria. Since the publication of this classic article, a large number of pottery fragments with mat impressions have been encountered in excavations, e.g., at Ghassul

No.

Locus/Basket

1

230/2107.1

2

230/2107.2

3

166/1412

4

206/2068

5

220/2093

5

2

1 0

2

3

4

Fig. 5.5. ‘Positives’ in plasticine of mat impressions. No.

Type

1

Type 1

2

Type 2A

3

Type 2

4

Type 2

(North 1961: Pl. XI), in the burial caves at Azor and Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:58; Figs. 58:1; 67:11–13; 109:4), at Ma‘abarot, Taiyiba, Peqi‘in, Ramat Bet Shemesh (unpublished material) and Sha‘ar Efrayim (Cave 5; unpublished). Moreover, fragments of actual mats, of types identical to the impressions

50

TAMAR SCHICK

as well as new types, have been retrieved from arid sites: e.g., the caves in Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980:192–195), the Cave of the Warrior in Wadi elMakkukh (Schick 1998:23–25, 39–40) and Nahal Lahat (unpublished material), to mention a few. The mat impressions from Shoham belong to types not discussed by Crowfoot. The specimens designated here as Type 1 have parallels at Azor (Perrot 1961: Pl. VII:15, 16; Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 67:11, 12) and in a few of the Peqi‘in ossuaries (unpublished material, personal observation). Several actual mats of this structure, including the mat in which the treasure from Nahal Mishmar had been wrapped, were described by Bar-Adon (1980:190; Figs. 63–64, 67–68). At the time of his study Bar-Adon was unable to find parallels to these mats. However, his suggestion (Bar-Adon 1980:190) that the impression on the base of the large pithos from Khirbet Delhamiye (Tsori 1967) may have been of similar technique, seems to me unacceptable. Rather, the impression on the base of this pithos, as observed in a photograph of the positive, has similarities with Type 2 of Shoham.

The structure of Type 2 is a rush matting in plain weave technique on a cord warp. The taut warps characteristic of this type raise the question whether a special loom (a frame) was used for the manufacture of such mats. A depiction of a mat loom is known from Egypt (Broudy 1979:17, Fig. 1:10). The impressions of plain weave (Shoham Type 2A) resemble the pattern observed on an ossuary base from Azor (Perrot 1961: Pl. VII:17; Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 58:2; 67:13) and on a base from Ghassul (Koeppel 1940: Pl. 83:17). The nuances among the various specimens may stem from differences in the thickness of the elements involved in the weave. The assemblage of impressions on pottery bases from Shoham presents mat types of a wide geographical distribution although they do not fall under any of the three major basketry sub-classes: twined, coiled and plaited (Adovasio 1977:1). Further information and investigations are needed to ascertain if there was any regionality in mat production, and whether the different types were connected to the availability of raw material and/or to tradition.

NOTES 1

Mat impressions on the bases of vessels are known since the beginning of pottery production, e.g., at Jericho in Pottery Neolithic A, in the earliest phases at Ghassul and at Feinan (Kenyon and Holland 1982:74, Fig. 31; Hennessy 1989:236; Goren 1990). They are most common in the Chalcolithic

period, but are also found on Early Bronze Age jars, e.g., at Arad (Amiran 1978: Pl. 110). The mats in Early Bronze Age contexts seem to have also functioned as primitive tournettes.

REFERENCES Adovasio J.M. 1977. Basketry Technology. Chicago. Amiran R. 1978. Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. First and Fifth Seasons of Excavations 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Bar-Adon 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds from the Caves of Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Broudy E. 1979. The Book of Looms. New York. Crowfoot G.M. 1938. Mat Impressions on Pot Bases. LAAA 25:3–11. Goren Y. 1990. The ‘Qatifian Culture’ in Southern Israel and TransJordan: Additional Aspects for Its Definition. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:100*– 112*. Hennessy J.B. 1989. Ghassul. In D. Homes-Fredericq and J.B. Hennessy eds. Archaeology of Jordan III (Field Reports Akkadica Supplementum VII). Leuven. Pp. 230–241.

Kenyon K.M. and Holland T.A. 1982. Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. Oxford. Koeppel R. 1940. Teleilat Ghassul II. Rome. North R. 1961. Ghassul 1960. Excavation Report. Rome. Perrot J. 1961. Une tombe à ossuaires du IVe millénaire à Azor, prés de Tel-Aviv. ‘Atiqot 3:1–83. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Schick T. 1998. The Cave of the Warrior. A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert (IAA Reports 5). Jerusalem. Tsori N. 1967. Two Pithoi from the Beth-Shean Region and the Jordan Valley. PEQ 99:101–103.

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

51

CHAPTER 6

THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY CATHERINE COMMENGE

INTRODUCTION Grave goods represent, by definition, a selected inventory of artifacts that participate in the funerary ritual. Their association with secondary and multiple burials does not present an obstacle in examining their within-grave patterning and diachronic modification (see Perrot and Ladiray 1980), nor does it prevent an investigation into the general nature of Chalcolithic societies (see Levy and Alon 1982). Pottery is by far the most abundant material in caveburial deposits of the coastal plain. The comprehensive study by Perrot and Ladiray (1980) explored many aspects of these caves and their contents, elaborating a basic typology for the corpus of ossuaries, establishing a stratigraphic sequence of reference and attempting to interpret their significance for Chalcolithic societies. Several of these interpretations have been challenged by new evidence for a hierarchical social organization brought to light with the investigation of the Mesad Aluf cemetery and the remarkable burial cave at Nahal Qana (Levy and Alon 1982, 1985a, b; Gopher and Tsuk 1996). To a limited extent, the finds collected at Shoham provide data on some of the questions addressed by these authors. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of this assemblage renders it unsuitable for documenting reliable and detailed grave-good patterning. Thus, our main, if ambitious, concern was to attempt to recognize different categories of goods and their specific distribution, use and valuation within the cave burials. Household pottery assemblages are used for reference to assure the specific character of this funerary assemblage.

TYPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE VESSELS (Table 6.1)1 The pottery figures are presented according to cave and appear at the end of the chapter.

Small Bowls (Figs. 6.1:1; 6.3:1–6; 6.10) Three types of small bowls are identified. Type 1 represents more than half of all the complete bowls in the assemblage from the Shoham burial caves. It includes V-shaped bowls with flaring, convex or straight walls, usually wheelmade (72% of the complete ones) or coilmade and refined on a tournette (Figs. 6.3:3, 6; 6.10:19). Type 2 comprises bowls with parallel, upright walls. Type 2a bowls with convex walls (Figs. 6.3:1, 2), otherwise rather rare in the Shoham assemblage, are characteristic of Cave 2. Type 2b includes bowls with upright convex walls and an everted rim (Figs. 6.3:5; 6.10:10). They can be compared to some (rare) examples from Bir es-Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 18:16, 18). The consistent thickness of these bowls from base to rim, resulting from the throwing of the clay, produced thin, fine vessels. This technological element contrasts with the relative coarseness of Types 2c and 3. Type 2c has a sinuous profile with slightly flaring walls and a rather large, flat base (Fig. 6.10:11). In contrast with the previous types, these are shallow bowls, the height being less than the mouth diameter. Type 3 includes bowls with a sinuous profile, convex, flaring walls and an everted, oblique rim (Fig. 6.10:5, 6, 9). Some were finished on the tournette (Fig. 6.10: 1–3). These bell-shaped bowls represent 17% of the bowl assemblage of Shoham (based on diagnostic rims). The manufacturing technique provides evidence of a fundamental evolution in the potters’ technological know-how: the bowls have heavy bottoms which can be described as ‘burr’-bases, and thickened walls which could be a result of the molding of the bases. Almost 50% of these bases are thickened, narrow and cursorily defined by a light padding of clay. Unfortunately, the Shoham assemblage does not provide a sufficiently reliable sample of complete bases for investigating the technical steps and their significance in terms of technological choices.2 The stratigraphic record from the burial caves of Azor and Ben Shemen clearly establishes

52

CATHERINE COMMENGE

Table 6.1. Distribution of Common Vessel Types (MNI = 354*) Vessel** Small bowls: Type 1 Type 2a Type 2b Type 2c Type 3

Cave 1, L122

Cave 2, L129

Cave 4 (All Loci)

Caves 1, 2, 4 Total MNI

37 9 3 8 8

3 2 1 3 10

55 12 7 11 18

-

11 1 2 -

Large bowls

9

13

20

10

52

Basins: ‘Potmarks’*** Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

4 5 1

5 3 1

1 5 2 -

3 4 1 1

4 18 11 3

Pedestal bowls

-

4

15

3

22

Holemouth jars

3

11

1

2

17

2 10

7 13

11 43

8 24

28 90

-

1

2 1

1 1

3 3

39

72

166

77

354

-

-

4

26

Necked jars: Type 1 Type 2 Miniature churns Regular churns Total Ledge handles

4 1

Cave 1, L152

30 ****

* MNI of vessels calculated per number of vessel bases. ** Vessel categories are defined according to types, or secondary morphological elements evaluated as diagnostic to the assemblage. *** Basins with potmarks were recovered in Cave 2 (1 example in L129) and Cave 4 (3 examples). **** 60 handles that represent MNI 30 basins (or jars, see n. 8), not included in the total MNI as some or all may belong to vessels already counted.

a relative chronological position at the interface of the Late Chalcolithic and EB I periods for this third category of bowls (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:57, 73). Large Bowls (Figs. 6.3:7, 8; 6.12:1–6, 9; 6.13:3; 6.33:1, 2) Large bowls present a variable morphology (rim diam: 20–27 cm). Walls are straight (Figs. 6.12:2), convex (Fig. 6.3:7, 8), or slightly concave (Fig. 6.12:1) and flaring. Slightly everted rims are the exception (Fig. 6.12:3). Red-painted rims appear on 31.7% of the large bowls. Smudges of red paint (on 12% of the large painted bowls) could indicate more elaborated designs (Fig. 6.12:2). Fragments show parts of linear and impressed designs, one of them associated with painted stripes (Fig. 6.12:4). All large bowls were clearly coil-made. The profile was refined by placing the bowl on the tournette and increasing speed while the rim was shaped and thinned. There is no evidence here for the use of wheelmade modules, enlarged by coils placed at the rim, a technique

observed in the pottery production of the Be’er Sheva‘ sites (Commenge-Pellerin 1987; 1990). Basins (Figs. 6.3:11; 6.12:7, 11; 6.13:1, 2) Three types of basins are distinguished: deep basins (Type 1; diameter > 40 cm, height > 25 cm) and shallow basins (Type 2; diameter < 40 cm, height < 20 cm) comprise respectively 56% and 35% of the basin assemblage. The only complete vessel, used as an ossuary, illustrates the second type (see Fig. 4.3:8). Both types have straight or slightly convex flaring walls. The rim is rounded (Fig. 6.3:11), horizontal and protuding outward (see Fig. 4.3:8), everted (Fig. 6.12:7) or inwardly oblique (Figs. 6.13:1). A third and minor type (Type 3) is represented by basins with convex, parallel walls and a rounded (Fig. 6.12:11) or flattened rim (Fig. 6.13:2). One sherd shows a finger-impressed design below the rim (Fig. 6.12:11). On all types, the decoration appears mainly on the rims, red painted (11.1%), or painted and finger impressed (8.3%; Fig. 6.12:7).

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

Deep basins with a tubular spout are relatively frequent in burial caves (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 71:11; 128:1, 2; 129:3), in contrast with pottery assemblages of settlement sites (for example at Bir es-Safadi they represent only 10% of the basins [Commenge-Pellerin 1990:20, Fig 29:1–5]), but they are noticeably absent in the inventory from the Shoham caves.3 However, basins with ledge handles (Fig. 6.32) or incised potmarks (Fig. 6.33:1) find parallels in the pottery assemblages from Layers 2 and 3 of Tomb 510 at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 129). Shallow Cups One fragmentary cup (another fragment could be related to this shape, see Fig. 6.2:3) is shallow and oval, with a flaring profile (rim diameter c. 10 cm). Similar cups recovered at Abu Matar and Gilat, in the northern Negev, allow the reconstruction of a thick, flat, slightly protruding base (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 22:8). Cornets (Figs. 6.1:2; 6.4) Only five fragments of cornets were uncovered at the site. The stem is circular in section, yet these vessels are too fragmentary to be related to any particular type. Fenestrated Pedestal Bowls (Figs. 6.5; 6.6; 6.17) Unfortunately, no complete profile illustrates this type of vessel. From observations of recurring morphological elements and dimensions, a rudimentary classification can be proposed. The large majority of the fragments of bowls, with straight, flaring walls, are either deep or shallow V-shaped vessels. The base of the bowl is flat or slightly convex (Fig. 6.17:3, 4). Bowl fragments with convex walls and a slightly convex base comprise 9% (Fig. 6.5:5). More information is available in regard to the pedestals. They are bell shaped with divergent, slightly convex walls and a characteristic base which flares outward (Fig. 6.17:10). Three fragments of pedestal bases have an everted, rounded rim (Fig. 6.5:8). ‘Windows’ are rectangular, high and narrow. Bi-fenestrated and tri-fenestrated pedestals can be identified from the most complete profiles (Fig. 6.5:6). Two groups of fenestrated pedestal bowl bases are distinguished. The smaller bases represent 31% of the pedestal vessel assemblage (diameter of the base of the bowl—6 to 7 cm; diameter of the base of the pedestal—13 to 14.2 cm; height of the pedestal—9.2 to 10.4 cm; Fig. 6.5:2). The largest vessels exhibit different proportions: the diameter of the base of the

53

pedestal is twice its height (8.7 to 9.5 cm; Fig. 6.5:1). The highest pedestals, with narrow, elongated openings cut immediately beneath the base of the bowls, find parallels in the pedestaled vessels of Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 70:3, 10). No traces of soot or burnt deposits were found which could provide evidence for utilization as incense burners.4 Painted and incised designs are present in equal proportion, appearing on 36.3% of the fenestrated pedestal vessels. Red paint underlines the base of the pedestal or is liberally applied to the inside and outside of the bowl and, in one case, even to the inside of the pedestal of a small vessel (Fig. 6.5:6). The relative scarcity of painted decoration on pedestaled vessels is also observed at Azor and Ben Shemen. Some vessels (according to fragments of bases of at least four vessels) bore incised chevron designs. These are located vertically between two openings (Fig. 6.6). This type of design is also recorded in the assemblages of Azor, Abu Matar and Shiqmim (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 72:14; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 22:10; Levy 1987: Fig. 12.19:9). One fragmented pedestal bears several short, horizontal lines placed between the ‘windows’ (Fig. 6.5:1). The incised designs and their patterning on Chalcolithic fenestrated pedestal vessels could indicate imitation of similar designs carved on basalt vessels (below, Chap. 9; see Perrot 1955; 1957; Commenge, forthcoming). However, incised patterns, in particular horizontal bands of chevrons, although rare, are part of the ceramic repertoire at Shoham (see below). The systematic correlation of this type of decoration to particular (ceremonial?) vessels is still to be demonstrated, although one incised fenestrated pedestal and one fragmentary incised miniature churn were recovered in the pottery assemblage of Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Figs. 22:10; 36:8). Holemouth Jars (Figs. 6.7:1; 6.18; 6.19; 6.22:1, 2; 6.33:3, 4) The large majority of the holemouth jars correspond to their generic designation and present a restricted opening, smaller than half the diameter of the jar. The wall is sharply rounded towards the rim, which is rounded or slightly tapering (see Fig. 4.4:9). However, 11% of the holemouth jars have a relatively large opening: the diameter of the opening is larger than half the (estimated) maximum diameter of the jar. The shoulder is slightly convex and the rim is rounded (Fig.

54

CATHERINE COMMENGE

6.18:1–4, 6, 9, 10). Two of these jars have a tubular spout (Figs. 6.7:1; 6.18:5). A third type includes jars with a narrow opening and a short upright rim (Fig. 6.22:2), making this shape transitional to the typological category of large jars with a short, upright neck (Fig. 6.21:1, 2, 5). Some fragments of holemouth jars are red painted or bear a combed decoration (Fig. 6.18:8– 14). A few fragments have rope decoration with finger impressions around the opening. Two holemouth jars (from Cave 4) bear potmarks (Fig. 6.33:3, 4). Necked Jars (Figs. 6.2:10; 6.7:2–4; 6.8:1; 6.21; 6.22: 3–7; 6.23:1, 6; 6.26; 6.27; 6.35:1) Type 1 is comprised of large jars with a wide opening (31% of the necked jars). This category is divided into two sub-types: Type 1a includes globular jars with a short upright neck (Fig. 6.21:2) or a slightly flaring neck (Fig. 6.21:1, 3). The mouth diameter is 17.8–24 cm and the maximal diameter at mid-body is 39–50 cm. More elaborated necks have a concave profile with an everted, rounded rim (Fig. 6.21:4–6), sometimes flattened outward (Fig. 6.21:6). One of these jars, used as an ossuary, has two small, perforated lugs placed on the shoulder (see Fig. 4.4:12). Red-painted decoration appears on 98% of these large, necked jars. The best preserved designs are seen on jars used as ossuaries. The necks are painted red, on the shoulders are patterns of oblique parallel bands (see Fig. 4.11:15). On one jar, defined zones of oblique lines are centered around the lug handles and between them is a pattern of large, wavy vertical bands down the globular body of the jar (see Fig. 4.11:14). One jar with a short, red-painted neck has a design of impressed ‘palmettes’ around the shoulder (Fig. 6.21:11; see Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 73:12; Abu Matar: Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 36:8). Type 1b includes large necked jars with gently sloping shoulders and a wide, short neck (mouth diameter 20 to 23 cm; see Fig. 4.4:11). The neck has a concave profile and is generally decorated with finger impressions (Fig. 6.26:1–3). Type 2 (c. 70% of the necked jars) includes globular vessels with a cylindrical neck. The neck has concave, parallel, upright walls with a round (Fig. 6.27:1) or tapering rim (Fig. 6.27:4). Jars with a mouth diameter ranging between 11 and 13 cm represent small jars; mouth diameters between 14.5 and 16 cm represent medium-sized jars. In the latter category, the maximum diameter of the body averages 35 to 38 cm. Jars with

a mouth diameter between 16.2 to 17.3 cm, represent large jars. Several have finger-impressed decoration on the rim (Fig. 6.26:9), often red-painted (Fig. 6.26:4). Among the smallest vessels in this jar type are two examples presenting an almost complete profile, with a high neck like a truncated cone, a globular body and two opposing lug handles (Fig. 6.7:2). Such jars with sloping shoulders are similar to jars found at Bir esSafadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 48:7). Jar Bases (Fig. 6.20) Most of the jar bases are flat with a sharp, well-defined angle marking the junction with the body of the vessel (Fig. 6.20:1–5). The diameters of the bases fall into two sizes: diameters of 8.5 to 13 cm which can be assigned to the smallest of the necked jars, in particular to those with a cylindrical neck, and diameters of 16.5 to 19 cm. Among the smallest bases, 8% present a rounded junction with the body wall, and either a thin base (Fig. 6.21:16) or a pronounced inner convexity (see Fig. 4.4:13). Pithoi (Fig. 6.28:1–5) Pithoi can be described as jars with wide openings (diameters averaging 25 cm) and round, everted rims decorated with finger impressions. They can only be identified from fragments that are often too small to establish their orientation. Churns5 (Figs. 6.2:11; 6.9:1–4; 6.30) Churns are rare in this assemblage. Although a few sherds belong to churns of regular dimensions, most belong to miniature churns with an average length of 20 cm. Their spindle-shaped body, as opposed to that of regular churns, has two ogival extremities with small handles, triangular in section (Fig. 6.9:2, 3). The neck has a carinated base, slightly concave walls and a flaring rim (Figs. 6.9:1; 6.30:1). One neck, shaped like a small bowl, can be assigned either to a miniature churn or a jar (Fig. 6.30:3). Among the miniature churn fragments, 98.7% are red painted, yet no design can be identified. Narrow, horizontal bands usually decorate the carinated necks (Figs. 6.9:1; 6.30:1, 2). Handles (Figs. 6.2:11; 6.7:2, 5; 6.9:2–5; 6.19:10; 6.22:4; 6.27:8, 11; 6.29:1; 6.30:6–8; 6.31; 6.32) Lug handles, a morphological element characteristic of Chalcolithic pottery, are triangular in profile and triangular to sub-triangular in section. They represent 93% of the recorded handles at Shoham. Most of them

55

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

are perforated. They are located on the shoulders of large, necked jars or holemouth jars (see Fig. 4.4:9, 12). Finger- or stick-impressed decoration occurs on 62% of the handles. Tubular lugs are found on fragments of small vessels (Fig. 6.9:5). Incipient ledge handles are semi-oval in profile and are always decorated with impressions (Figs. 6.7:5; 6.19:10; 6.29:1; 6.32). Most of them were made of a single strip of clay, differing from the protruding ledge handles that characterize the later Early Bronze Age vessels.6 The shallow handles at Shoham were probably placed horizontally below the widest point of large basins and perhaps jars (Fig. 6.32:1), serving as grips to aid in moving heavy vessels. See the complete vessels in cave-fill contexts at Azor and Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 75:1–7; 129:8–9). A fragment of a large jar displays twin knobs probably located at the widest point of the vessel (Fig. 6.26:10). Knobs are rare at Shoham, as they are in the pottery assemblage of Bir es-Safadi, there also attached to large vessels (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 52:5, 11). Decoration Decoration per se does not seem to be characteristic of burial cave pottery assemblages. It is found on 51.5% of the vessels (MNI; Table 6.2), a percentage similar to that observed in the pottery assemblages of settlement sites (Commenge-Pellerin 1987; 1990; Gilead 1995). The frequencies of decorated jars also resemble those of settlement sites: 70% of Type 2 jars are decorated, a percentage rising to 89.2% for Type 1 jars.

Red paint appears on 40.1% of the total vessels. Other techniques of decoration modify the surface of the vessels, either by impression or incision. Discontinuous designs, finger-impressed or toolimpressed, were gently stamped on the wet clay. The side of a stick formed smooth, elongated impressions mainly on the ridge of handles, or the tip of a stick or a small reed formed rounded, crescent-shaped or oval punctures (Fig. 6.8:3, 4). Punctate designs were repeated and organized in parallel horizontal, vertical or oblique bands (Figs. 6.24:4; 6.25:7). Continuous impressed designs were obtained by lightly moving the tool and thus displacing clay particles. Short, oblique lines were repeated horizontally, alternating to form ‘palmette’ patterns7 (Figs. 6.16:6; 6.21:11; 6.23:1–3). Similar decorations are recorded from the Cave of the Treasure (Bar-Adon 1980: Fig. 15:4–7) and Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Figs. 22:10; 36:8). The repertoire of continuous impressed designs is completed by the technique of combing which produces specific patterns. The (wooden?) comb created parallel, U-shaped shallow grooves which form quilted motifs covering the (entire?) surface of the vessel (Fig. 6.19:3–6). Evenly applied, these patterns are suggestive of basketry. In 57% of the combed patterns, red paint covers the impressions (Figs. 6.19:1, 2, 8; 6.20:4; 6.21:14). In one case, impressions made with a single, sharp-pointed tool imitate a combed design (see Fig. 4.2:5). Potmarks are isolated designs placed below the rim of holemouth jars or basins (see Figs. 6.33, 34). The deeply incised impressions, which form criss-cross or

Table 6.2. Frequency Distribution of Decoration on Vessel Types (MNI = 354) from All Caves DECORATED Vessels

Painted

Impressed

Paint+Imp

TOTAL Combed

Paint+Comb

% Decorated

% Not decorated

Small bowls; N = 103

47.5

-

-

-

-

47.5

52.5

Large bowls; N = 52

30.7

7.6

1.9

-

-

40.3

59.7

Basins; N = 36,

11.1

2.7

8.3

5.5

-

27.7

72.3

Pedestal bowls; N = 22

18.1

18.1

-

-

-

36.3

63.7

Holemouth jars; N = 17

17.6

-

-

11.7

-

29.4

70.6

Necked jars; N = 118

53.0

4.5

1.2

9.0

6.8

74.5

25.5

Churns; N = 3

33.3

-

-

-

-

33.3

66.7

Miniature churns; N = 3 Total

100.0

-

-

-

-

100.0

-

40.1

3.9

1.4

3.9

2.2

51.5

48.5

(Decoration: light pattern combing 36; light pattern combing and painted 4; incised 1; impressed 64)

56

CATHERINE COMMENGE

ladder-shaped patterns, suggest a specific mark, sign or signature. A few fragments of closed vessels show patterns of horizontal or concentric stripes (‘spiral painted’, Fig. 6.26:11, 12). Some necked jars from Abu Matar and Bir es-Safadi (0.3% of the decoration in the latter assemblage) bear this kind of decoration, sometimes associated with red painting (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Figs. 30:9; 31:3; 1990: Figs. 24:3; 35:5; 46:9; 54:10). At least a few sherds from the Cave of the Treasure (Bar-Adon 1980:145; Figs. 13:7; 14) have this type of decoration, which is also mentioned at Grar (Gilead 1995:186). Y. Dagan (IAA) recently uncovered a large bowl with this type of decoration applied to the inside at Kh. Raqiq in the Negev (Y. Dagan, pers. comm.). Still, the most remarkable example of this kind of decoration comes from recent discoveries at Buto (Stratum Ia) in the Nile Delta, where a few sherds of this type, inter alia, suggest interrelationships between Egypt and Chalcolithic Palestine (Faltings 1998; 2002; Commenge and Alon 2002). Miscellaneous (Figs. 6.36; 6.37) A number of perforated Chalcolithic ceramic sherds were found in Cave 4, in both burial and dwelling contexts. This group is comprised of body sherds with one or two perforations, drilled after firing from the outer surface (Fig. 6.36), probably for the purpose of mending breaks in the pottery vessels.

Another group of sherds from Cave 4 burial and domestic contexts consists of reworked, rounded body sherds (Fig. 6.37), most likely used as stoppers or lids on small-sized pottery vessels.

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES FROM CAVES 1, 2 AND 4 AT SHOHAM (NORTH): A CASE STUDY The pottery assemblages of each cave are presented separately and compared to each other with the aim of identifying similarities and differences between them, emphasizing their idiosyncrasies, as well as evaluating the contrast with household assemblages from settlement sites. The Pottery Assemblage of Cave 1, L122 (Fig. 6.1; see also Figs. 4.1–4.4; Table 6.3) Open shapes are more numerous than closed shapes, roughly comparable to ratios observed in pottery assemblages from settlement sites (see Fig. 6.38).8 The inventory of Cave 1, L122 includes a relatively low percentage of small bowls in comparison to Cave 2, L129, or the pottery assemblages of settlement sites (Commenge-Pellerin 1987:27; 1990:3). This situation is somewhat compensated by the relatively high quantity of large bowls and basins. Statistically, basins are five times more numerous in L122 than they are in the settlement assemblage of Bir es-Safadi, for example. As in the case of Cave 2, L129, necked

Table 6.3. Cave 1, L122. Frequency of Open vs Closed Vessels within the Assemblage Diagnostic Potsherds

Number of Rims

% in Assemblage; (N = 125)

Small bowls

27

21.6

35.5

Large bowls

17

13.6

22.3

Basins

28

22.0

36.8

4

3.2

5.2

Total open shapes

76

60.8

Holemouth jars

15

Necked jars Total closed shapes

Pedestal bowls

Total rims

% of Rims in the Open (N = 76) or Closed (N = 49) Category

MNI

% in the Assemblage (N = 39)

% of MNI in the Open (N = 24) or Closed (N = 15) Category

Small bowls

5

12.8

20.8

Large bowls

9

23.0

37.5

Basins

10

25.6

41.6

24

61.4

100.0

100.0

Total open shapes

7.6

20.0

30.6

Holemouth jars

3

12.0

30.7

80.0

27.2

69.3

Medium-sized necked jars

12

34 49

39.2

100.0

Total closed shapes

15

38.3

100.0

Total MNI

39

125

Complete Vessels

57

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

jars are more numerous in comparison to domestic assemblages at settlement sites, but also to other burial cave assemblages such as Azor. With the exception of a few sherds, fenestrated pedestal vessels are absent. No churn fragments were found in Cave 1, L122, and only two fragments were collected from a fill (L152) in Cave 1. As a whole, the assemblage of Cave 1, L122 can be assigned to the Be’er Sheva‘ phase of the Chalcolithic period. The ossuaries of L122 (see Chap. 4) are similar to those found in the burials of Ben Shemen. However, the vessels are only similar to those of the ‘first period’ of occupation, as defined by Perrot and Ladiray (1980:73). Globular bowls with an everted rim, and large, horizontal ledge handles placed low on basins or jars—both characteristic of the upper layers (couches superieures) at Azor—are also noticeably missing in Cave 1, L122 (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:57). The Pottery Assemblage of Cave 1, L152 (Fig. 6.2; Table 6.4) The assemblage of L152 shows similarities to that of L122. There is a relatively low percentage of small bowls, compensated by a high proportion of large bowls and basins. The relatively large representation of necked jars in L152 also resembles the situation in L122. However, the presence of a large number

of fenestrated pedestal vessels is noteworthy here. Miniature churns are represented by a single fragment. A fragmentary shallow cup could be related to the small vessels found in large quantities at the sanctuary site of Gilat (Commenge, in press). There is also one fragmentary cup in the pottery assemblage of Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 22:8). A few decorated sherds, impressed or impressed and painted, may provide evidence of an earlier occupational phase during the Chalcolithic period (Fig. 6.2:4–8). Similar designs are seen in Wadi Rabah assemblages from Munhata and Sheikh Ali (Garfinkel 1992; Sussman 1990). The Pottery Assemblage of Cave 2, L129 (Figs. 6.3– 6.9; Table 6.5) In contrast with observations for Cave 1, Loci 122 and 152, the respective quantities of open vessels are similar to those at the settlement site of Bir es-Safadi, for example. However, as is the case in Cave 1, necked jars are more numerous, in particular the medium-sized category. Churns of regular dimensions are absent. Although the archaeological context is not explicit concerning the association of specific vessels with individual burials, the discrete presence of vessels such as cornets and small churns (or jars) with a carinated neck (Fig. 6.9:1), and the definite presence of

Table 6.4. Cave 1, L152. Frequency Distribution of Open vs Closed Vessels within the Assemblage Diagnostic Potsherds

Number of Rims

% in the Assemblage (N = 218)

% of Rims in the Open (N = 130) or Closed (N = 88) Category

Small bowls

48

22.0

36.9

Small bowls

14

19.7

35.0

Large bowls

51

23.4

39.2

Large bowls

13

18.3

32.5

Basins

23

10.5

17.6

Basins

9

12.6

22.5

Cup

1

0.4

0.7

Cornet

1 (+ 2)

Pedestal bowls

7

3.2

5.3

Pedestal bowls

4

5.6

7.5

Total open shapes

40

56.2

100.0

Holemouth jars

Complete Vessels

MNI

% in the Assemblage (N = 71)

% of MNI in the Open (N = 40) or Closed (N = 31) Category

Total open shapes

130

59.1

100.0

11

15.4

35.4

Holemouth jars

11

5.0

12.5

Large necked jars

7

9.8

22.5

Necked jars

76

34.8

86.3

18.3

41.9

1

0.4

1.1

Small necked jars

13

Small churn Total closed shapes

88

40.1

100.0

Total closed shapes

31

43.5

100.0

Total MNI

71

Total rims

218

58

CATHERINE COMMENGE

Table 6.5. Cave 2, L129. Frequency of Open vs Closed Vessels within the Assemblage Diagnostic Potsherds

Number of Rims

% in the Assemblage (N = 820)

Small bowls

112

1.6

5.4

Large bowls

63

8.7

28.3

121

16.8

54.5

Basins

26

3.6

11.7

Cornets

Basins Pedestal bowls

% of Rims in the Open (N = 322) or Closed (N = 498) Category

Complete Vessels

MNI

% in the Assemblage (N = 170)

% of MNI in the Open (N = 110) or Closed (N = 60) Category

Small bowls

65

38.2

59.0

Large bowls

20

11.7

18.2

8

4.7

7.3

Pedestal bowls

2

1.1

1.8

15

7.3

11.4

Total open shapes

322

30.7

100.0

Total open shapes

110

64.5

100.0

Holemouth jars

18

2.1

3.6

Holemouth jars

1

0.5

1.6

Small necked jars

12

1.4

2.4

Small necked jars

5

2.9

8.3

Medium-sized necked jars

360

43.9

72.2

Medium-sized necked jars

38

22.3

63.3

Large necked jars

106

12.9

21.2

Large necked jars

12

7.0

19.9

Pithos

1

0.1

0.2

Pithoi

2

1.1

3.3

Small churn

1

0.1

0.2

Small churns

2

0.6

1.6

Total closed shapes

498

60.5

100.0

Total closed shapes

60

34.8

100.0

Total rims

820

fenestrated pedestal vessels, could be evidence of ritual practice. The high frequency of fenestrated pedestal vessels contrasts sharply with the recorded material from settlement-site inventories. Still, it is modest when compared to the quantities in the funerary caves at Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:117) or the settlement site of Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 4.29).9 The pottery assemblage of Cave 2, L129 is large and varied. In contrast to the pottery assemblages described above, several morphological elements which are assigned to a later phase of the Chalcolithic period (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:57, 73)—ledge handles, bowls with thick walls and everted rims (Type 3), together with a few bases of pithoi with combed decoration—were found here together with vessels which are characteristic of the Be’er Sheva‘ horizon. These later Chalcolithic vessels actually constitute 89% of the L129 assemblage. Furthermore, some sherds are decorated with impressed lunulae associated with a painted design (Fig. 6.8:4), or with horizontal rows of impressed dots (Fig. 6.8:6). This decoration is in the tradition of the Wadi Rabah ware (Garfinkel

Total MNI

170

1992), which was still favored at the Chalcolithic site of Gilat (Commenge, in press). As in Cave 1, it could be evidence of an earlier occupation of Cave 2. Fine ware represents a large part of the Chalcolithic material from Cave 2. Most of the bowls are small, with parallel, convex rims, a few are made of cream ware, and 81% have a red-painted rim (Fig. 6.3:1–3, 7). The use of large jars as ossuaries (or potential ossuaries/ossuaries-to-be) at Shoham appears plausible, considering that in Cave 2 a minimum of three large jars were used as ossuaries, in addition to one large funerary jar used in Cave 1, L122. The Pottery Assemblages of Cave 4 (Figs. 6.10–6.37; Table 6.6) Thirteen loci of Cave 4 have produced a varied inventory of vessels in relatively good condition. Some 80% of the loci include only two to three vessel types. Basins are ubiquitous, a status reserved for small V-shaped bowls at settlement sites. They are associated with other V-shaped vessels or with necked jars. Pedestal bowls seem to be associated

59

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

Table 6.6. Cave 4. Frequency Distribution of Open vs Closed Vessels within Loci 163, 166, 169, 171, 172, 175, 177b, 201, 206, 209, 215, 218, 232* Diagnostic Potsherds

V-shaped bowls

Number of Rims

68

% in the Assemblage (N = 459) 14.8

Complete Vessels

MNI

22.8

V-shaped bowls

10

% of Rims in the Open (N = 298) or Closed (N = 161) Category

% in the Assemblage (N = 67)

% of MNI in the Open (N = 30) or Closed (N = 37) Category

14.9

33.3

94

20.4

31.5

Large bowls

8

11.9

26.6

Basins

136

29.6

45.6

Basins

9

13.4

30.0

Total open shapes

298

64.8

100.0

Pedestal bowls

3

4.4

10.0

30

44.6

100.0

Holemouth jars

34

7.6

21.1

2

2.9

5.0

Small necked jars

24

5.2

14.9

Medium-sized necked jars

39

8.4

24.2

Large bowls

Total open shapes

Large necked jars

64

13.9

39.7

Total closed shapes

161

35.1

100.0

Total rims

459

Holemouth jars Small necked jars

6

8.9

16.2

18

26.8

48.6

Large necked jars

7

10.4

18.9

Small churns

1

1.4

2.7

Medium-sized necked jars

Churns

3

4.4

8.0

Total closed shapes

37

54.8

100.0

Total MNI

67

* Loci producing an assemblage sufficiently well preserved to register minimal number of individuals

with specific types of vessels. In L201, a fenestrated pedestal bowl was found together with a small vessel (jar?) and a churn of regular dimensions. In L169, one pedestal bowl is associated with eighteen necked jars of medium size. The assemblages from Cave 4 are presented in Table 6.6, highlighting certain idiosyncrasies already noticed in the inventories of other caves at Shoham. Basins and large bowls are numerous, their quantities almost equaling those of the small V-shaped bowls. Pedestal bowls are present in proportions slightly higher than in Caves 1 and 2, Loci 122, 152 and 129, and this is in contrast to their very limited presence at settlement sites. Once again, necked jars are relatively numerous. Small, medium and large jars represent almost half the vessels in Cave 4 (46.1%). Here too, churns are present, although their frequency is one third that in the settlement site of Bir es-Safadi, for example. Although mixed with intrusive material deriving from numerous pits, the pottery assemblages of Cave 4, in particular of the 13 selected loci, present obvious affinities with the pottery assemblages of Chalcolithic sites in the northern Negev. Parallels are well

illustrated in the repertoire of jars, the most frequent vessels in Cave 4. The basins and large bowls also have strong parallels within the Be’er Sheva‘ assemblages. However, 21% of them bear red-painted designs, which may be due to their association with burials. The frequency of painted decoration on large bowls finds a parallel in the pottery assemblage of the sanctuary site at Gilat (Commenge et al., in press). At Bir es-Safadi, a unique basin bearing a large, elaborated design was placed in a niche sealed by a wall (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 30). A fragmentary vessel from L207 with a narrow opening (Fig. 6.13:5) could be a beaker or an urn, a shape that is also frequent at Gilat (Commenge et al., in press). In Cave 4, 82% of the bowls have a sinuous profile, parallel, vertical walls and everted rims. These morphological characteristics, together with technical elements such as the thickness of the coil-made walls and base, relate them to the bowls found in Tomb 510 (Layers 2, 3) at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 123:11–17). Among the bowls, 15% belong to the V-shaped category, of which 13% were identified as wheelmade. Due to the uncertain stratigraphy of the

60

CATHERINE COMMENGE

cave deposits, it cannot be ascertained whether they were associated with the everted rim bowls of Type 3, as in Layers 2 and 3 at Ben Shemen, or belonged to an earlier occupation of Cave 4. The frequency of combed designs, in particular on large jars and holemouth jars, together with potmarks incised below the rim of large bowls or holemouth jars, are elements that may suggest an occupation of Cave 4 during a later phase of the Chalcolithic period or at the interface between the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age (see Chap. 16). A few impressed or impressed and painted sherds from Cave 4 (Loci 166, 169, 173, 175, 184, 188, 199, 204, 206, 207, 211, 220, 227) can be related, as in Caves 1 and 2, to the Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic period (Figs. 6.24, 6.25). Short, impressed lines (Figs. 6.24:3; 6.25:1–3), oval and circular impressions (Fig. 6.25:5–7) and nail impressions (Fig. 6.25:9) find parallels in the Wadi Rabah assemblages at Munhata (2A) and Sheikh Ali (Garfinkel 1992; Sussman 1990). These impressions seldom compose regular or geometric patterns. Linear designs of regular lunulae form ‘palmette’ decorations on jars (Figs. 6.21:11; 6.23:1, 3), as well as on the outer and inner rims of large bowls (Figs. 6.15, 6.16; Loci 173, 175, 177, 199, 206 and 220). These palmette designs are ‘associated’ with the impressed ‘Wadi Rabah’ sherds.10 The conception and organization of these designs are different from the geometric designs observed on fenestrated pedestals (Fig. 6.6). However, no stratigraphic evidence corroborates an early occupation of Cave 4.

THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES FROM CAVES 1, 2 AND 4: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS Several categories of vessels are associated with ossuaries. The first category comprises vessels with complex morphological characters such as fenestrated pedestal bowls and miniature churns. These two types of vessels are only found in minute quantities at most settlement sites. Their use in a ritual context defined by mortuary practices may also be corroborated by the presence of painted churns with a carinated neck, a vessel which, so far, is only identified in burialcave assemblages. Vessels usually found in household contexts represent a second category of vessels. A third category is represented by functional household vessels reused for secondary burial purposes.

In spite of an apparent disparity in the archaeological evidence, is it possible to sketch out recurring and perhaps significant patterns in the association of vessels and ossuaries in the Shoham caves? The ratio of vessels per ossuary tends to be relatively homogeneous (Table 6.7) in varying locations such as the 13 selected loci in Cave 4, L122 in Cave 1 and L129 in Cave 2, while L152 in Cave 1, a fill layer, stands out with a threefold higher ratio of vessels per ossuary (Table 6.7). Bowls and necked jars seem the most frequent types of vessels associated with ossuaries in every location. At the Mezad Aluf (Levy and Alon 1985b:81) and Ben Shemen burials (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:63–64) an average of at least one bowl per ossuary was proposed. Bowls and probably their contents may be evidence for the frequency of offerings, as many bowls were found piled up at Ben Shemen. At Shoham, the bowl to ossuary ratio oscillates between less than one per two (L122), to almost three per ossuary (L152). The apparent covariance of quantities of bowls (an individual open vessel) and necked jars (a closed vessel of variable dimensions) could eventually provide evidence for their functional complementariness. Basins, defined as vessels for collective consumption and short-term storage (Commenge-Pellerin 1987:49), are remarkably represented in Caves 1 and 4. They are at least as numerous as the ossuaries. Their presence and location have also been noted in other burial caves. A late deposit of four large basins with incised potmarks was placed in the center of Tomb 510 at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:67), whether as ossuaries-tobe or offerings. However, the intricacy of the deposits and the evidence for reoccupation of the caves could temper the assumption of basins as ossuaries-to-be or offerings. This may also be the case for jars that were frequently used as ossuaries. The use of basins, bowls or jars for secondary burial practices introduces a third category of vessels. There is no certain indication here that this custom is related to a later phase of the Chalcolithic period as suggested elsewhere (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:110), or to an ultimate reuse of the caves as burial sites. The emphasis can here be put on the multi-function of vessels previously assigned, by the author of these lines, to more practical purposes. Finally, with the exception of Cave 2, it should be noted that pithoi were apparently excluded from the cave burials, while a large number of jars were associated with the burials at Shoham.

61

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

Table 6.7. Ratio of Vessel Type per Ossuary in the Various Loci at Shoham (calculated according to MNI, N of Ossuaries = 75) Cave 1, L122 (N = 11)

Cave 1, L152 (N = 5)

Cave 2, L129 (N = 38)

Cave 4 (N = 21)

Small bowls

0.4

2.8

1.7

1

Large bowls

0.8

2.6

0.5

0.8

Basins

0.9

1.8

0.2

0.9

Pedestal bowls

-

0.8

0.4

0.3

Holemouth jars

0.2

0.3

2.2

0.03

Small necked jars

-

2.6

0.1

0.6

Medium-sized necked jars

1

-

1.0

1.8

Large necked jars

-

1.4

0.3

0.7

Small churns

-

-

0.05

0.1

Churns

-

-

-

0.3

3.4

14.2

4.3

3.2

Total ratio vessels/ossuaries

This analysis highlights some aspects of the pottery assemblages deriving from Caves 1, 2 and 4. Basins, jars and pedestal bowls are present in larger quantities than in household contexts (Fig. 6:38). Bowls, as individual vessels, seem relatively underrepresented, even in comparison to other burial-cave assemblages. Prestige artifacts are rare in the burial caves of the coastal plain. With the exception of the vessels from Cave 2, L129, fine ware is absent from the studied assemblages. Most

1

of the funerary vessels are large containers made of strong, gritty ware. Whether the vessels of Shoham represent offerings or ritual paraphernalia, vessels for the dead or for the living, is an open question. However, keeping in mind the fact that no direct association to specific ossuaries was observed, patterns of vessel association appear sufficiently consistent to be implicit if not explicit of ritual protocols associated with secondary burials.

3

2

Fig. 6.1. Cave 1. Loci 100 and 122. Pottery. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Small V-shaped bowl

122

1120

Plain surface

2

Cornet

100

1067

Base fragment

3

Pithos?

100

1022

Rim/wall fragment

62

CATHERINE COMMENGE

3 1

4

0

2

5

2

6 0

2

9 8

7 0

0 0

2

2

2

12 11 10 0

10

Fig. 6.2. Cave 1. Locus 152. Pottery. No.

Type

Basket

Description

1

Small bowl?

1349.19

Rim missing

2

Open shape

1348.01

Incised (wavy) and red-painted design on exterior

3

Shallow cup

1298.25

Base missing

4

Jar

1343.01

Oblique incisions

5

Globular jar

1220

Body fragment; oblique incisions as well as horizontal lines

6

Body sherd

1327.01

Double line of impressed decoration

7

Body sherd

1285.16

‘Palmette’; stamp(?) seal impression?

8

Body sherd

1257.01

Impressed and painted decoration

9

Body sherd

1348.08

Potmark applied prefiring; traces of combing on exterior

10

Jar

1339

Rim indented

11

Handle of small churn

1304.15

12

Body sherd/spindle whorl

1295.01

Perforated from both sides; painted

Parallels

Abu Matar: Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 22:8

63

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1 4

3

5 2

6 8

7

9

0

2

11

10 0

2 0

10

Fig. 6.3. Cave 2. Loci 128 and 129. Bowls and basins. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels

1

Small bowl

129

-

Rim red painted, interior/exterior; cream ware

2

Small bowl

129

1427.05

Rim red painted, exterior; cream ware

3

Small bowl

129

1558

Rim red painted, interior/exterior; string-cut base

4

Small bowl

129

1087

Unpainted

5

Small bowl

128

1447.06

Splash-painted, exterior

6

Small bowl

129

1087

Wheelmade; plain

7

Bowl

129

1338

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

8

Bowl

-

-

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

9

Bowl

129

1476.05

Incised decoration, interior

10

Bowl

129

1440.13

Potmark on interior applied prefiring

11

Basin

129

1087

Rim red painted; drip painted

1

0

12

5

2

Fig. 6.4. Cave 2. Locus 128. Cornets. No.

Locus

Basket

1

128b

1527.26

2

128c

1273.2

Bir es-Safadi: Commenge-Pellerin 1990: Fig. 21:8

64

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1

2

4

3

5

6

8

7

9

11

10

12 0

10

Fig. 6.5. Cave 2. Loci 128 and 129. Fenestrated pedestal bowls.

65

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY


Fig. 6.5 No.

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels

1

129

1568

High stand. Incised decoration on upper part of pedestal

Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 124:9

2

129

1087

Tall bowl, short stand

Ben Shemen: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 124:10

3

129

1435

Medial part

4

129

1440

Medial part

5

129

1333

Medial part

6

129

1088

Base of bowl with 3 legs; red painted interior/exterior

7

129

-

Base; red painted

8

128

1240

Base; red painted

9

129

1440

Base

10

129

-

Base

11

129

1373

Base

12

129

Base

2

1

4

3 0

2

Fig. 6.6. Cave 2. Locus 128. Fenestrated pedestal bowls. No.

Basket

Description

Parallels

1

-

Incised base-ring fragment; filled with white material.

2

1302

Incised leg fragment; filled with white material

Azor: Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 62:14

3

1514

Incised leg fragment; filled with white material

As No. 2

4

1302.1

Incised leg fragment

66

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1 2

3 4

6

5

0

10

Fig. 6.7. Cave 2. Loci 128 and 129. Holemouth and necked jars. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

Parallels

1

Holemouth jar rim

128

1266.03

Spouted

Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Fig. 26:4

2

Necked jar

129

1552

Painted; with lug handle(s)

3

Necked jar

129

1555.08

Indented rim; red painted

4

Necked jar

129

1516

Indented rim; red painted

5

Ledge handle of jar

129

1443.31

Painted

6

Jar base

129

1574.06

Horizontal combing on outside

67

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1

2

0

3

2

5

4

6

Fig. 6.8. Cave 2. Loci 128 and 129. Closed vessels: body sherds with impressed designs. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

129

1544.1

Horizontal and oblique impressions

2

129

-

Impressed dashes

3

129

1471.19

Impressed dashes

4

129

1475.1

Crescent-shaped impressions; red painted

5

129

-

Impressed design

6

128

1528

Impressed design

4

3

2

1

0

10

Fig. 6.9. Cave 2. Loci 128 and 129. Miniature churns and small, closed vessel. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Churn neck

129

1552.27

Red painted

2

Churn handle

128

1259

Pointed; red painted. Nos. 1–2 possibly from same churn

3

Churn handle

128

1368

Pointed; red painted.

4

Churn handle

129

1088

Very small; red painted

5

Tubular lug handle

129

1549.20

Vertical handle; red painted

5

68

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1

2

5

6

3

8 7

10

9

12

11

14

13

4

15

18

19

0

17

16

20

10

Fig. 6.10. Cave 4. Small bowls. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

177

1536.1

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

11

198

2040.49

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

2

189

2012.4

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

12

192

2024.1

3

169

1452

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

13

232

2109.9

4

205

2049.9

14

173

1506

2058.4

15

220

2088

16

220

2088

5 6

207

2055.3

7

207

2058.27

Rim red painted

17

185

2071.15

8

150

1215.2

Rim red painted, interior

18

169

1480

9

207

2055.2

19

193

2025.1

10

171

1508.10

20

150

1215.9

Rim red painted, interior

String-cut base

69

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1

3

2

4

6

5

8

7

11

9

12

10

15 16

14

13

17

20

18 19

0

21

10

22

Fig. 6.11. Cave 4. V-shaped vessels: rim fragments. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

175

1539

Plain

13

175

1380.15

2

177

1582

Plain

Red painted, interior/ exterior

3

169

1456.25

Red painted

14

-

-.12

Red painted, interior

4

168

-

Plain

15

166

1433.04

5

169

1576

Red painted, interior

Red painted, exterior

6

166

1403.03

Plain

16

175

165.

Red painted, interior/ exterior

7

169

1481.7

Red painted, interior/ exterior

8

175

1525.06

Plain

9

177

1536.02

Red painted, interior/ exterior

10

166

1432.03

Plain

11

175

1539.05

Plain

12

177

1582

Red painted, interior/ exterior

17

175

1525.04

Plain

18

181

1586

Plain

19

175

1511.04

Plain

20

177

1582.20

Red painted, interior/ exterior

21

175

1509.27

Red painted, interior/ exterior

22

175

1523

Plain

70

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1

2

0

4

3

6

5

8 7

10 0

9

10

11

Fig. 6.12. Cave 4. Large bowls and basins.

2

71

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY


Fig. 6.12 No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Large bowl

150

1215.01

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

2

Large bowl

172

1495.1

Splash painted, exterior

3

Large bowl

169

1576

Rim red painted, interior/exterior

4

Large bowl

-

-

Red painted, interior/exterior

5

Large bowl

171

1465.1

Splash painted exterior

6

Large bowl

180

1584

Rim red painted, exterior

7

Basin

171

1484.3

Thumb indented rim; rim red-painted, interior/exterior; splash painted, exterior

8

Basin

180

1585

Base

9

Large bowl

169

1452.05

Rim red painted, interior

10

Bowl

169

1452.03

Rim red painted, exterior

11

Basin

198

2040.40

Finger-indented rim

2

1

4

5

0

3

Fig. 6.13. Cave 4. Miscellaneous pottery. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Basin

175

1523.03

Oblique rim

2

Basin

175

1524

3

Large bowl

213

2074.02

4

Large bowl?

166

1934.04

5

Cylindrical vessel (large beaker?)

207

2054.09

Horizontal combing on exterior surface

10

72

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1

2

3

4

0

5

5 0

2

Fig. 6.14. Cave 4. Bowls: drip painted/splash painted. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Large bowl base

206

2057

Splash painted on exterior near base

2

Bowl rim

207

2055

Splash painted on exterior

3

Body sherd

232

2109

Drip painted on interior

4

Body sherd

156

1319

Drip painted on exterior

5

Body sherd

199

2072

Drip painted on exterior

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1

2b

2c 2a

Fig. 6.15. Cave 4. Large bowls: incised and decorated sherds. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

220

2088

Red painted; 3–4 lines of ‘palmette’pattern; interior and exterior

2a

175

1509

‘Palmette’ pattern on interior of rim

2b

175

1539

‘Palmette’ pattern on interior of rim

2c

175

1522

‘Palmette’ pattern; interior and exterior (2a–c same bowl)

73

74

CATHERINE COMMENGE

2

0

1

3

5 4

0

2

6

Fig. 6.16. Cave 4. Bowls: incised and decorated sherds. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

173

1501.2

‘Palmette’ pattern on exterior of rim

2

175

1523

Separate lines of herringbone pattern, interior/exterior

3

199

2054.01

‘Palmette’ pattern below rim, exterior

4

199

2054

Herringbone pattern on rim; painted; interior/exterior

5

177

1520

Herringbone pattern on rim; interior/exterior

6

206

2052.56

‘Palmette’ pattern on inside of rim

10

75

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1

2

3

4

7

6

5

8 9

11

10

12 0

10

Fig. 6.17. Cave 4. Fenestrated pedestal bowls. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

1

Rim fragment

169

1575

2

Wall fragment

220

2098

3

Medial fragment

169

1576

4

Medial fragment

175

1580

5

Medial fragment

169

1574

6

Medial fragment

169

1576

7

Medial fragment

168

1.14

8

Medial fragment

227

2099.77

9

Medial fragment

184

2003.04

10

Base ring

169

1559.10

11

Base ring

166

1451.9

12

Base ring

201

2041

Description

Red-painted, exterior

Incised decoration

Red-painted, exterior

76

CATHERINE COMMENGE

3

2

1

4

6

5

8

7

9 10

11 12

0

10

13 14

Fig. 6.18. Cave 4. Holemouth jars. No.

Locus

Basket

1

175

1523.13

2

175

3

166

4

169

1454.03

5

206

6

175

7

203

2045.10

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

Description

8

206

2068.31

Combed pattern

1509.07

9

172

1493.04

Combed pattern

1421.2

10

220

2093.116

Grooves

Red-painted, exterior

11

227

2099.61

Grayish wash/slip

2066.92

Red painted; spouted

12

206

2060.90

Grayish wash/slip

158?

Combed pattern and incised pot mark

13

220

2085.51

Combed pattern

14

-

-

Combed pattern

77

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

2 1

0

2

3

4

6

5

7

8 9

0

10

10

0

2

Fig. 6.19. Cave 4. Holemouth jars: body sherds. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

211

2067.20

Red painted and combed

2

227

2099

Red painted and combed

3

-

-

Combed pattern

4

206

2060.94

Combed pattern

5

220

2085.74

Combed pattern

6

173

1505.26

Combed pattern

7

173

1509

Impressed herringbone pattern and combing

8

173

1506.30

Painted and combed

9

206

2068.122

Combed pattern, large grooves

10

173

1506.14

Red-painted ledge handle and combing

78

CATHERINE COMMENGE

2

1

4

3

5

0

10

Fig. 6.20. Cave 4. Jar bases. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

232

2109.73

Light combing

2

218

2079.14

Light combing

3

206

2052.100

Vertical combing

4

169

1454.09

Red-painted band and combing

5

209

2080.90

Horizontal combing

79

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

2

3

1

6

5

4

8

7

10

9

11

12

0

2

0

2

14 13

0

16

15

10

Fig. 6.21. Cave 4. Necked jars. Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

1

151

1282

Rim red painted, interior/ exterior

10

166

1420.03

11

171

1508

2

-

2015.03

Rim and exterior red painted

3

166

1450

Rim red painted; incised ‘palmette’ pattern exterior, below rim

4

167

1483.01

12

166

1417

5

185

2071.55

Tear or drop-shaped impressions below rim

6

169

1481.08

13

206

2068.232

Punctured decoration exterior, below rim

7

-

-

14

209

2080.73

Horizontal combing, exterior

8

169

1467.03

15

169

1559.11

9

175

165.

16

207

2045.12

No.

Description

80

CATHERINE COMMENGE

2 1

3 4

5 6

7

0

10

Fig. 6.22. Cave 4. Jars. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Holemouth jar

225

2102.47

Upright rim

2

Holemouth jar

207

2055.27

Upright rim

3

Necked jar

166

1451.08

Short neck

4

Small jar

180

1583

Lug handle(s)

5

Jar

177

1582

6

Necked jar

209

2080.06

7

Necked jar

209

2080.03

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1 2

3

4

6

5 0

2

Fig. 6.23. Cave 4. Jars: incised, impressed decoration. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

206

2060.01

‘Palmette’ pattern

2

165

1437.01

2 rows of ‘palmette’

3

227

2099.106

‘Palmette’; rolled/ impressed?

4

220

2088.100

Double line of vertical incisions; red painted

5

171

1497

Incised; red painted

6

227

2105

Oblique incisions

81

82

CATHERINE COMMENGE

2

1

3

4

6 5

8

7

9

Fig. 6.24. Cave 4. Jars: incised, impressed decoration. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Jar (?), rim

204

2047.124

Incisions on rim

2

Shoulder fragment

220

2088.72

Horizontal impressions

3

Wall fragment

220

2088.128

Double line of oblique impressions

4

Wall fragment

166

1420.10

Double line of impressed dots; red painted

5

Shoulder fragment

206

2060.03

Vertical impressions

6

Shoulder fragment

211

2073

Line of horizontal impressions

7

Shoulder fragment

173

1501.03

Horizontal impressions

8

Shoulder fragment

-

-

Vertical incisions

9

Shoulder fragment

175

1539

Oblique incisions

Fig. 6.25 No.

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

166

1417.19

Oblique incisions

6

188

2023.08

Circular, reed impressions

2

173

1506.05

Oblique impressions

7

207

2055.01

Circular, reed impressions

3

199

2054.36

Double line of impressions

8

169

1576

Red painted

4

220

2085.124

Impressed dashes

9

184

2001.05

Incised, painted; cream ware

5

169

1468.07

2 vertical lines of tear drops

83

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

2

3

1

4 5

6

8

7 9

Fig. 6.25. Cave 4. Jars: incised, impressed decoration.

84

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1 2

4 3

5

7

6

9

8

10

11

0

12

10

Fig. 6.26. Cave 4. Jars: finger-impressed rims and decorated body sherds. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

169

1468.06

Finger impression on rim

7

175

1588

2

171

1484.02

Finger impression on rim

Rim red-painted, interior/ exterior and finger impressed

3

175

165.

Finger impression on rim

8

175

1511.05

Finger impressions

Rim red painted, interior/ exterior and finger impressed; neck red painted, exterior

9

180

1585

Finger impressions

10

219

2084.31

2 small knobs on exterior; red painted

4

166

1405.02

5

175

1540.03

Finger impressions

11

177

1579

‘Spiral painted’ on exterior

6

169

1575

Finger impressions

12

185

2083

‘Spiral painted’ on exterior

85

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1

3

2

6 5

4

7 9 8

11

10 0

2

0

10

Fig. 6.27. Cave 4. Necked jars. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

177

1582

2

227

2105.01

3

172

1496.01

4

166

1412.01

5

175

1583

6

175

1509.05

7

175

1523

8

169

1482

Incompletely preserved, lug handles

9

198

2033.03

Rim red painted

10

177

1520

Incised decoration on shoulder

11

139

1089

Loop handles on/above shoulder

Rim red painted

86

CATHERINE COMMENGE

2

1

4 3

5 0

10

Fig. 6.28. Cave 4. Large storage jars (pithoi). No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

171

1507

Finger-impressed rim

2

151

1264.05

Finger-impressed rim

3

169

1560

Finger-impressed rim; circular impressions below rim on exterior

4

204

2047.40

Finger-impressed rim; redpainted exterior

5

169

1455

87

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

2

1

0

10

4

3

Fig. 6.29. Cave 4. Jar bases. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

-

-

Ledge handle near the base

2

181

1603

Applied rope decoration near base

3

180

1583

4

-

-

Red painted

3 4

1

5

2

7 6

8 0

10

Fig. 6.30. Cave 4. Churns. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Small churn

175

1580.02

Red painted; carinated neck

5

Small churn?

227

2099.41

Red painted

2

Small churn

177

1582

Carinated neck

6

Small churn

171

1497.02

3

Small churn

151

1278.07

7

Large churn

202

2048.01

4

Small churn?

220

2093.279

8

Large churn

232

2109.61

88

CATHERINE COMMENGE

2

1

4 3

5

6 0

10

Fig. 6.31. Cave 4. Lug handles. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

169

1467

2

169

1481.29

Impressed

3

175

1588

Impressed

4

220

2088.51

Impressed

5

220

2085

Impressed

6

220

2093.205

Impressed

89

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

1

2

4 3

6

5

0

Fig. 6.32. Cave 4. Ledge handles. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

209

2082

2

220

2098

3

206

2057.59

4

166

1420.09

Red painted

5

227

2109.60

Red painted

6

206

2066.98

10

90

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1 2 0

10

0

0

2

3

10

4 0

2

7 5

6

Fig. 6.33. Cave 4. Potters’ marks applied before firing. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Large bowl

206

2060.80

Potters’ mark on exterior, below rim

2

Large bowl

227

-.13

3

Holemouth jar

173

1506.18

Potters’ mark on exterior, below rim

4

Holemouth jar

219

2084.01

Potters’ mark on exterior

5

Body sherd

220

2093

Horizontal combing and potters’ mark on exterior

6

Body sherd

166

1403.01

Potters’ mark on exterior

7

Body sherd

220

2095

Potters’ mark and traces of combing on exterior

Potters’ mark on exterior

91

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

2

3

1

4

6

5

8 7 9

11

10

12 0

2

Figs. 6.34. Cave 4. Potters’ marks applied before firing. No.

Locus

Basket

7

220

2085

8

206

2066.287

2088.155

9

206

2066.286

2085.59

10

199

2054.28

229

2099.138

11

269

2065.46

171

1464.04

12

173

1502.39

Locus

Basket

1

177

1518.01

2

220

2088.163

3

223

4

220

5 6

Description

Red painted, exterior

No.

Description

92

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1

2

4

3

6

0

5

Figs. 6.35. Cave 4. Potters’ marks applied before firing. No.

Locus

Basket

1

209

2080

2

197

2036.30

3

199

2054.61

4

208

2059.03

5

207

2070.48

6

231

2108.07

2

93

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

2b 1b 1a

2a

1c 2c

2d

1d

0

2

3a 4 3b

3d

3c

0

4

Fig. 6.36. Cave 4. Perforated body sherds.* No.

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Locus

Basket

Description 1 drilled hole

1a

206

2066.224

1 drilled hole

2d

206

2066.259

1b

188

2018.05

1 drilled hole

3a

206

2066.232

I drilled hole

1c

-

-

1 drilled hole

3b

206

2066.234

1 drilled hole, painted

1d

220

2085.26

1 drilled hole

3c

206

2066.230

1 drilled hole

2a

206

2063.42

2 small drilled holes

3d

227

2109.19

1 drilled hole

2b

206

2060.67

1 drilled hole

4

166

1436.04

2 drilled holes

2c

206

2066.228

1 drilled hole

* All perforations made after firing of the vessel; drilled from outside in.

94

CATHERINE COMMENGE

1a

1b

1c

1d

1e

2c

2b

2a

0

2

Fig. 6.37. Cave 4. Reworked pottery sherds reused as stoppers/lids. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

1a

Body sherd

220

2085.128

1b

Base fragment

220

2093.532

1c

Body sherd

220

2085.66

1d

Body sherd

220

2085.57

1e

Body sherd

220

2088.140

2a

Body sherd

220

2085.55

2b

Body sherd

220

2088.80

2c

Body sherd

206

2052.143

95

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

(1) Shoham Caves 0

20%

40%

(2) Settlement Sites 60%

0

20%

40%

60%

Pedestal bowls

Large bowls

Bowls

Bowls

Basins

Basins

Holemouth jars

Holemouth jars

Necked jars

Necked jars

Churns

Churns

Cave 1, L122 N = 39

Bir es-Safadi (Commenge 1990: Table 1)

Cave 1, L152 N = 71

Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 4.28)

Cave 2, L129 N = 170

Shiqmim Building Phase I (Levy 1987: Table 12.2)

Cave 4, N = 67

Shiqmim Building Phase II (Levy 1987: Table 12.3)

Fig. 6.38. Comparison of the frequency distribution of vessels (represented by more than 2% of the MNI) in (1) the Shoham caves and (2) settlement sites.

96

CATHERINE COMMENGE

NOTES 1

The descriptive vocabulary used here follows standards elaborated for the morphological analysis of Near Eastern and Mediterranean pottery (Yon 1981:176–177). Vessels are considered volumes revolving around a vertical axis. Their profile is consequently determined by two combined criteria: the rectilinear, convex or concave profile of the walls, or segments of walls, from base to rim, and their orientation toward the vertical axis, either parallel, convergent or divergent. For example, bowls with convex and divergent walls have a flaring profile, while bowls with convex and parallel walls tend to be hemispherical. 2 The assemblage collected by Prof. R. Gophna from burial caves at Palmahim could provide a substitute for documenting this specific topic. 3 The small, painted spout in Fig. 6.18:5 seems to belong to a small holemouth jar. Although fragmentary, its inner surface is rough, which is seldom the case for an open shape. 4 The pedestaled vessels from the large assemblages of Abu Matar, Bir es-Safadi and Gilat are also ‘clean’ vessels, both inside and out. Evidence for a probable utilization of such vessels for burning incense has, as far as I know, been collected only by Kaplan. 5 The term ‘churn’ is kept throughout this text for the sake of convenience. As previously stated (Commenge-Pellerin

1987:50–51: vases fusiformes), ‘spindle-like vessel’ would be more appropriate and accurate insofar as it does not imply a function for this type of vessel. 6 For extensive documentation on ledge handles, see Amiran 1978:35–37. 7 This is not a herringbone design. Herringbone is a rather stiff design applied to basalt vessels and also some pottery sherds (Figs. 6.2:7; 6.6:3). In this case the short lines are curved and the design stripe is curved as in a vegetal design. 8 The minimum number of vessels takes into consideration the quantity of bases recovered for each type of vessel (Commenge-Pellerin 1987:25). The number of jar bases is corroborated by the counting of the necks. Two ledge handles represent one large vessel, thus helping to define sub-categories in a typological group (basin or jar) formerly defined by the counting of the larger bases. 9 No source is given for the proposed percentages presented here. Accurate percentages cannot be derived from the catalogue of the Azor cave published by Perrot and Ladiray (1980). 10 This association in loci with no internal stratigraphy does not preclude contemporaneity.

REFERENCES Amiran R. 1978. Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City. First and Fifth Seasons of Excavations 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1987. La poterie d’Abou Matar et de l’Ouadi Zoumeili (Beershéva) au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chretienne (Cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 3). Paris. Commenge-Pellerin C. 1990. La poterie de Safadi (Beershéva) au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 5). Paris. Commenge C. Forthcoming. Le mobilier en pierre des sites chalcolithiques de Beer Sheva, Israël (Cahiers du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem). Commenge C. In press. Gilat’s Ceramics: Cognitive Dimensions of Pottery Production. In T.E. Levy ed. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). London– Leicester. Commenge C. and Alon D. 2002. Competitive Involution and Expanded Horizons: Exploring the Nature of Interaction between the Northern Negev and Lower Egypt (c. 4500– 3600 BCE). In E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy eds. Egypt and the Levant, Interrelations from the 4th

through Early 3rd Millennium BCE. (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). London. Pp. 139–154. Faltings D. 1998. Recent Excavations in Tell el-Fara’in/Buto: New Finds and Their Chronological Implications. In C.J. Eyre ed. Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82). Leuven. Pp. 365–375. Faltings D. 2002. The Chronological Frame and Social Structure of Buto in the Fourth Millennium BCE. In E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy eds. Egypt and the Levant, Interrelationships from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). London. Pp. 65–172. Garfinkel Y. 1992. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha‘ar HaGolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel) (Cahiers du centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 6). Paris. Gilead I. 1995. Grar, a Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Gopher A. and Tsuk T. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 12). Tel Aviv. Goren Y. and Fabian P. 2002. Kissufim Road. A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site (IAA Reports 16). Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 6: THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC POTTERY

Huntington R. and R.F. Friedman. 1979. Celebration of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge. Levy T.E. 1987. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984) (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Levy T.E. In press. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). London. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1982. The Chalcolithic Mortuary Site near Mesad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert: A Preliminary Study. BASOR 248:37–59. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1985a. The Chalcolithic Mortuary Site near Mesad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert: 3rd Preliminary Report, 1982 Season. BASOR Supplement 23:121–135. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1985b. Shiqmim, a Chalcolithic Village and Mortuary Centre in the Northern Negev. Paléorient 11:71–83.

97

Perrot J. 1955. Excavations at Abu Matar, near Beersheva, Israel. IEJ 5:17–40, 73–84, 167–189. Perrot J.1957. Les fouilles d’Abou Matar, près de Beersheva. Syria 34:1–38. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Sinopoli C.M. 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York. Sussman V. 1990. Sheikh Ali 1959. The Section in Area C. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:113–140. Yon M. 1981. Dictionnaire illustré multilingue de la céramique du Prôche-Orient ancient (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient Mediterraneen 10, serie Archéologique 7). Lyon– Paris.

98

CATHERINE COMMENGE

99

CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY BRONZE AGE I POTTERY

CHAPTER 7

THE EARLY BRONZE AGE I POTTERY RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

In the southwestern portion of Cave 4 a number of pits cut through the Late Chalcolithic deposits, apparently dug during the early phase of Early Bronze Age I, based on the presence of a few Gray Burnished Ware sherds found in the fill of some of these pits. They include four rim sherds (Fig. 7.1) and three additional carinated body sherds (Cave 4: L165, B1413; L201, B2041; L206, B2057). A fifth rim sherd derives from Cave 1 (L102). Clear evidence for domestic reuse of the caves during the late EB I (c. 3250–3100 BCE) derives from Caves 1 and 2. Caves 3 and 4 were apparently not utilized during this period.

CAVE 1, LOCUS 152B A mixture of Chalcolithic and late EB I pottery sherds (including a pillar-spout fragment), animal bones and flints were uncovered in the lower, western end of Cave 1 (L152b) over an area of c. 2.5 × 5 m. This area, immediately adjacent to the spot where an Intermediate Bronze Age burial (L152a) was uncovered (see Chap. 8), had caved in during antiquity. Most of the roof collapse had been removed long since, possibly during

the Early Islamic period, when a limekiln (L116) was operative in the caved-in central part of the same cave (see Fig. 3.11). The exposure of this part of the cave to both natural and human agents over a considerable period of time explains the stratigraphically mixed nature of most of the finds. The disturbed Chalcolithic materials here are most likely to be associated with the Chalcolithic burials uncovered in situ in Loci 122 and 155, in the north-central part of the cave (see Chap. 3). The late EB I materials are without any context.

CAVE 2, LOCUS 128A–B The condition of the finds was far better in Cave 2. Locus 128a–b is actually a single, c. 0.50 m thick layer (Stratum II), distributed more or less uniformly throughout the cave (except for the easternmost part, inaccessible due to stone debris). This layer is sandwiched between the cave’s topsoil (natural fill, Stratum III, L127) and Chalcolithic burial remains resting on the bedrock floor (Stratum I, Loci 129, 182, 183; see Plan 3.7). It is separated in places from the Chalcolithic burial remains by a layer of stone debris

3 2

1

0

4

10

5

Fig. 7.1. Gray Burnished Ware bowls from Caves 1 and 4. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

1

1

102

1020

4

4

206

2057.122

2

4

204

2051.35

5

4

204

2047.52

3

4

206

2052.121

100

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

(Plan 3.7: L128c, Section 1-1), probably resulting from roof collapse after a powerful earthquake. Large, heavy boulders in the eastern part of Cave 2, lying directly on the Chalcolithic burial deposits (see Fig. 3.17) and virtually preventing further usage of this part of the cave, testify to this. These boulders were so heavy that

2

only with great effort did we succeed in removing a few of them. The majority, however, together with the Chalcolithic deposits they sealed, had to be left in situ. Apart from a deep pit, L128a–b consists of soil mixed with ceramic sherds dating mainly to the late EB I (Figs. 7.2–7.6).

3

1

4

5

7 6 0

10

Fig. 7.2. Cave 2, L128. Late EB I pottery: bowls.

2

1

4 3

5 6

7

0

10

8

Fig. 7.3. Cave 2, L128. Late EB I pottery: holemouth jars.

CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY BRONZE AGE I POTTERY

The bowl assemblage consists of small hemispherical bowls (Fig. 7.2:1–4), a single, incomplete carinated bowl (Fig. 7.2:5) and medium-sized bowls with a profiled rim (Fig. 7.2:6, 7). Holemouth jars are plain (Fig. 7.3:1–3, 8) or slipped with a simple rim

(Fig. 7.3:4–7), sometimes with a thin ledge on the outside just below the rim (Fig. 7.3:3–6). Other jars include small and medium-sized necked jars (Fig. 7.4), some with plain or painted ledge handles (Fig. 7.5), occasionally lime washed or with painted grain-


Fig. 7.2 No.

Type

Basket

Description

1

Small hemispherical bowl

1221

Plain surface

2

Small hemispherical bowl

1299

Red slip on exterior, burnished

3

Small hemispherical bowl

1324

Plain surface

4

Small hemispherical bowl

1300

Plain surface

5

Small carinated bowl

1266

Red slip and pebble-burnish interior/ exterior

6

Bowl with ‘hammer-rim’

1300

Plain surface

7

Bowl with ‘hammer-rim’

1301

Red slip on rim and exterior


Fig. 7.3 No.

Basket

Description

1

1266

Plain rim

2

1249

Plain rim

3

1274

Thin ledge below rim’s exterior

4

1226

Thin ledge below rim’s exterior; red slip on exterior

5

1225

Thin ledge below rim’s exterior

6

1409

Thin ledge below rim’s exterior; red slip on exterior

7

1237.19

Red slip on exterior

8

1082

Fig. 7.4 No.

Basket

101

Description

1

1557

2

1498

3

2010

4

1306

5

2010

6

1312

7

1499

Lime wash on exterior

8

1078

Grain-wash on exterior

9

1082

Lime wash on exterior; double handle

10

1308

Red slip on exterior

11a 11b

1499 1261.4

Lime wash on exterior Body sherd with lime wash and applied rope decoration, possibly from same jar as 11a

12

1208.1

Large storage jar with rolled rim; red slip on exterior

Lime wash on exterior Lime wash on exterior

102

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

1

2 3

4

6 5

9

8

7

10 11a 11b 0

12

10

Fig. 7.4. Cave 2, L128. Late EB I pottery: necked jars.

1

2

wash, various jug(let)s and an amphoriskos (Fig. 7.6). Together with associated flints and animal bones (see below, Chap. 10), these sherds indicate a reuse of the cave for domestic purposes, probably for storage, rather than for dwelling (see below). It was most likely at this time that the entrance to Cave 2 was somewhat enlarged with a few steps hewn from the bedrock descending into the cave.


Fig. 7.5 4

3

0

10

No.

Basket

Description

1

1488

Red slip

2

1218

3

1398

Red paint

4

1224

Lime wash

5

1299

Painted in ‘pajama-style’

5


Fig. 7.5. Cave 2, L128. Late EB I pottery: ledge handles.

103

CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY BRONZE AGE I POTTERY

2

1

5

4

3

0

10

Fig. 7.6. Cave 2, L128. Late EB I pottery: jug(let)s, amphoriskos and cup. No.

Type

Basket

Description

1

Jug

1078

Red burnish

2

Amphoriskos

1227

Red burnish

3

Spouted jug

1236

4

Loop-handled cup

1261

Red slip

5

Juglet

2148

Line Group Painted Ware

DISCUSSION Comparison between the ceramic assemblages of Shoham (North) Caves 1 (L152b) and 2 (L128a–b) and the ceramic assemblage of one of its nearest contemporary neighbors, Tel Dalit Stratum V (Gophna and Iron-Lubin 1996:82–97),1 clearly shows that the Shoham material is typical of late EB I domestic assemblages “mainly in central Israel, exemplified by Tell el-Farah (N), Aphek, Gezer, Ai and Jericho” (Gophna and Iron-Lubin 1996:97). In the assemblages from Caves 1 and 2 holemouth jars constitute the largest component (Table 7.1). The

holemouth jars, usually covered with a slip (a typical ‘northern’ feature for the period and an indication that they were storage jars rather than cooking vessels), have either a simple, thickened rim, or a thin, welldefined ridge just below the rim (Fig. 7.3:3–6). They are undoubtedly flat based, as evidenced by the large number of flat jar bases uncovered (Fig. 7.3:7, 8; Table 7.1). Parallels are found at Tel Dalit (Gophna and Iron-Lubin 1996: Fig. 41. For further parallels and references to late EB I ‘ridged-rim’ holemouth jars see Dever 1988:22). Bowls are the second largest component (see Table 7.1). After bowls with a plain rim, the small hemispherical bowls are most common (Fig. 7.2:1–4; cf. Gophna and Iron-Lubin 1996: Fig 39:2, 4). They are sometimes covered with a slip, similar to the holemouth jars, and judging from the presence of soot on the rim, they were frequently used as lamps. In a single instance the bowl’s red-slipped surface had been polished (Fig. 7.2:2). Deep bowls, with or without a slip, with a characteristic profiled rim (‘hammer-rim’), are not uncommon (Fig. 7.2:6, 7; cf. Gophna and IronLubin 1996: Fig. 39:7). Fragments of small, carinated, burnished bowls belonging to Beck’s (1985) ‘Aphek family’, are fairly rare (Fig. 7.2:5; cf. Gophna and IronLubin 1996: Fig. 43:2). A third component is comprised of necked jars. Small to medium-sized jars, with a plain surface and often without a pronounced neck (Fig. 7.4:1, 2, 4, 6) are the most common. Of special interest are the short-necked jars with a double handle and applied lime wash (Fig. 7.4:9; a feature typical of the southern part of the country) and the jars with applied grainwash (Fig. 7.4:8).2 Only a few large storage jars (Fig.

Table. 7.1. Diagnostic Late EB I Sherds According to Type Bowls

Holemouth Jars

Necked Jars

Cave 1

4

61

6

Cave 2

721 (33%)*

942 (43%)

52 (24%)

Flat Bases 2743

Ledge Handles

Total

11

82

?

491

* % of rims. 1 Count of diagnostic bowl rims from Cave 2: 43 plain rims belong to open bowls; 17 rims belong to hemispherical bowls; 9 rims have a ‘hammer profile’; 3 rims belong to the family of carinated ‘Aphek’ bowls. 2 Count of holemouth jar rims: 27 rim fragments have a groove immediately below/on the rim; 19 rim fragments have a groove below the rim; 17 fragments are simple, thickened rims; 13 rim fragments have a groove and a ridge below the rim; there are 12 ‘bent’ rim fragments; 6 fragments have ‘straight cut’ rims. 3 Count of flat bases: 270 base fragments belong to jars; 2 base fragments belong to carinated ‘Aphek’ bowls; 2 base fragments belong to hemispherical bowls.

104

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

7.4:5, 10–12) were found. One of these has an applied band of rope decoration around the upper part of the body (Fig. 7.4:11a–b) and is covered with a thick lime wash. Numerous ledge handles of jars appear. Only one belonged to a small jar (Fig. 7.5:1); the rest comprised large storage jars, either plain (Fig. 7.5:2), red painted (Fig. 7.5:3), lime washed (Fig. 7.5:4) or painted with red stripes (‘pajama style’; Fig. 7.5:5).3 Finally, to complete the assemblage, a few fragments of red-burnished jugs and amphoriskoi (Fig. 7.6:1, 2), well known from late EB I tomb contexts such as Tel Esur and Tell el-Far‘ah (N), were retrieved. Also found were a fragment of a small, spouted jug (Fig. 7.6:3), a loop-handled cup (Fig. 7.6:4) and a fragment of a juglet of the Line Group Painted Ware (Fig. 7.6:5; another ‘southern’ trait).4 In summary, the late EB I ceramic repertoire is both homogeneous and limited in range (see Table 7.1). Taken together with the absence of any structural features in the late EB I layers, it appears that the caves were used for food storage rather than as dwellings during this period. A similar situation existed, for example, at contemporary Gezer (located c. 20 km to the south of Shoham), in Field I, Cave 3A, where “all lines of evidence converge to indicate that Cave I.3A’s use was primarily domestic, serving mainly as a ‘pantry-kitchen’ for the storage and preparation of food and intermittently also as an animal shelter” (Seger 1988:11). Remains of the actual late EB I settlement at Shoham (North) were uncovered in the 1992 excavations

Fig. 7.7. Early Bronze Age I sites in the vicinity of Shoham (North).

conducted by Y. Nadelman (1995), located some 250 m to the southwest of the caves (Kh. Abu Hamid; Fig. 7.7; see also Chap. 1). Other late EB I settlement sites in the near vicinity of Shoham (see Fig. 7.7) are to be found at Tel Dalit Stratum V (Gophna 1996) and Tel Lod (Kaplan 1977:68–71; Pl. 6; van den Brink 2002: Figs. 19.8–11). For three recently excavated late EB I burial caves in close proximity to Shoham (North) see n. 1.

NOTES 1

Tel Dalit is situated 5 km southeast of Shoham, atop a limestone hill, 164 m asl. There are two other contemporary sites even closer to Shoham, Horbat Hani and Horbat Tinshemet, located respectively 1.5 km and 2 km east of Shoham (N). However, since the late EB I finds from the latter two sites derive from recently excavated burial caves (Lass 1998, 2003; van den Brink and Grosinger 2004) and not from a settlement, the respective assemblages do not compare well. For another, only recently excavated cave with

some late EB I burial remains at Nevallat, in the near vicinity of Tel Dalit, see van den Brink and Lazar, in press. 2 For a recent discussion of this style, associated with the northern region of the country, see Braun 1996:197–199. 3 This style, in existence from the early EB I well into EB II, is discussed by Braun (1996:215–216). 4 Line Group Painted ceramics, most common during the late EB I, are discussed by Braun (1996:214–215).

CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY BRONZE AGE I POTTERY

105

REFERENCES Beck P. 1985. An Early Bronze Age “Family” of Bowls from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 12:17–28. Braun E. 1996. Cultural Diversity and Change in the Early Bronze I of Israel and Jordan: Towards an Understanding of Patterns of Regionalism and the Chronological Progression of Early Bronze I Society. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Brink E.C.M. van den. 2002. An Egyptian Presence at the End of the Late Early Bronze Age I at Tel Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel. In E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy eds. Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). London. Pp. 286–305. Brink E.C.M. van den and Grosinger Z. 2004. An EB IB Burial and Dwelling Cave near Horbat Tinshemet. ‘Atiqot 47:81–99. Brink E.C.M. van den and Lazar D. In preparation. A Chalcolithic Habitation and Installation Site and Later Remains along Nahal Nevallat. ‘Atiqot.

Dever W. 1988. The Pottery. In J.D. Seger. The Field I Caves (Gezer V). Jerusalem. Pp. 21–33. Gophna R. 1996. Excavations at Tel Dalit. An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv. Gophna R. and Iron-Lubin M. 1996. The Pottery Assemblages. In R. Gophna. Excavations at Tel Dalit. An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv. Pp. 81–134. Kaplan J. 1977. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod. EI 13:57–75 (Hebrew). Lass E. 1998. Horbat Hani (West). ESI 18:66. Lass E. 2003. An Early Bronze Age IB Burial Cave and Byzantine Farm at Horbat Hani (Khirbet Burj el-Haniya) (West). ‘Atiqot 44:1–51. Nadelman Y. 1995. Shoham. ESI 14:80–81. Seger J.D. 1988. The Field I Caves (Gezer V). Jerusalem.

106

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

CHAPTER 8: THE INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

107

CHAPTER 8

THE INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA

Sparse remains dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age1 (c. 2350–2000 BCE) were encountered in Caves 1, 2 and 4. They are presented below according to cave provenience.

burial, situated in an area where the cave’s ceiling was still intact, was delineated by a single straight line of fieldstones oriented east–west (see Figs. 3.12, 3.13). The skeleton was found in a right lateral, semicontracted position, head (missing) to the east and feet to the west. Fragments of the skull were recovered in the fill of the central part of the cave (see Chap. 3). In front of the deceased were four ceramic vessels (Fig. 8.1). The pottery uncovered in association with the burial indicates a date within the Intermediate Bronze Age. No other funerary gifts, such as weapons or jewelry, were found.

CAVE 1, LOCUS 152A Prior to the final reuse of the cave during the Early Islamic period, part of it was utilized for a single, primary burial of a male adult close to its southern end (see Chap. 11). At some time subsequent to the burial, the roof caved in over the central part of the cave. The

1

3

2

4 0

10

Fig. 8.1. Cave 1. Pottery from Intermediate Bronze Age burial, L152a.

108

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA


Fig. 8.1 No.

Type

Basket

Description

1

Cup

1245

Grooved with a three-toothed comb in two concentric rings on the exterior, below the rim; handmade

2

Cup

1599

Three concentric circles applied before firing with a single-toothed instrument on the exterior below the rim; a single, vertical, vestigial pinched ‘handle’ interrupts the full length of the decoration

3

Small, flat-based, ovoid storage jar

1306

Handmade, neck wheel-finished; plain surface

4

Flat-based, lug-handled amphoriskos

1246

Handmade, neck wheel-finished; a single line of oblique incisions, applied before firing, around the base of the almost straight neck; below this collar decoration, grooves made prior to firing with a single-toothed instrument in four continuous turns; the lug handles (one missing) interrupt both decorations

CAVE 2 Sporadic Intermediate Bronze Age sherds first appeared in the topsoil (L127), clearly in secondary context. Most of the sherds, however, derive from the upper levels of the underlying Stratum II (L128), where sherds were found in 30 separate baskets.

This material stands out easily among the ceramics of the two other periods attested in this cave, the late EB I and the Chalcolithic period, and we are confident, therefore, that all Intermediate Bronze Age sherds were identified. However, careful restoration did not yield a single reconstructable vessel. In the absence of any associable features, structural or otherwise,

2

0

1

4

3

5

6

Fig. 8.2. Cave 2. Intermediate Bronze Age storage jars, L128.

10

109

CHAPTER 8: THE INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY


Fig. 8.2

CAVE 4

No.

Basket

Description

1

1244

Incised collar decoration at base of neck

2

1227

3

1237

4

1292

5

1289

6

1311

Two vertical strokes applied after firing on inside of rim, similar to storage jar from Cave 4, L151, B1317 (= Fig. 8.3:7)

we consider the pottery to be the product of disposed waste. Apart from c. 200 non-restorable plain body sherds, the assemblage contains rim/neck/shoulder and flat base fragments of seven (MNI) storage jars (Fig. 8.2), only one of which (Fig. 8.2:1) has an incised collar decoration at the base of the neck. Sherds of open forms (cups, lamps, etc.) are absent.

1

3

2

5

8

Intermediate Bronze Age finds were restricted to the upper level of the cave fill in Sq 2 and the caved-in area between this cave and Cave 3 (in particular Loci 145, 151; see Plan 3.8). No specific features were observed, and as in Cave 2, none of the retrieved sherds could be fully restored; therefore, we assume that here also we are dealing with discarded materials. Apart from c. 320 plain body sherds, the assemblage contains rim/neck/shoulder and flat base fragments of 14 (MNI) storage jars (Fig. 8.3). Only four of these had handles (Fig. 8.3:5–8), and only two had an incised collar decoration at the base of the neck (Fig. 8.3:6). Six combed fragments of two (MNI) cups or mugs (Fig. 8.3:1–4) and a fragment of a single holemouth jar with a ledge below the rim (Fig. 8.3:13) were also retrieved. No lamps were found.

4

6

7

9

10

13 12 11 0

10

Fig. 8.3. Cave 4. Selected Intermediate Bronze Age pottery.

110

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA


Fig. 8.3 No.

Type

Locus

Basket

Description

1

Cup/mug

151

1272

Three close bands applied with six-toothed comb, pre-firing

2

Cup/mug

145

1252

Five close bands applied with two-toothed comb, pre-firing

3

Mug

145

1262

Close bands with two-toothed comb. Handle broken off

4

Cup/mug

156

1319

Close bands with two-toothed comb

5

Storage jar/ amphoriskos

199

2038

Lug handle (broken off) from upper part of shoulder to neck

6

Storage jar

206

2060

Incised collar decoration at base of neck and vestigial, pierced handle(s)

7

Storage jar

151

1317

A vestigial handle on the joint of neck with shoulder, another vestigial, horizontal ‘handle’ on the shoulder; on the inside of the neck two vertical strokes/lines applied post-firing (see Cave 2, L128/B1237 = Fig. 8.2:3); body handmade, neck wheelmade

8

Storage jar

201

2041

Small knob on upper part of the shoulder

9

Storage jar

151

1389

Neck wheelmade

10

Storage jar

151

1318

11

Storage jar

151

1253

12

Storage jar

145

1263

13

Holemouth jar

190

2014

Neck wheelmade

DISCUSSION The ceramic assemblages of Cave 1 (a primary burial) and Caves 2 and 4 (refuse), consisting mainly of flat-based ovoid storage jars, one or two flat-based amphoriskoi, several cups, a mug and a single holemouth jar, are typical of Amiran’s (1960) Family A and Dever’s (1970; 1995) S(outh) Group.2 No significant typological differences were observed between the assemblages of the three Shoham caves. The presence in both Caves 2 and 4 of storage jars incised on the inner rim, after firing, with identical (owner?) marks, is suggestive of a close relationship between the assemblages. The vessel surface is always plain (no slip, no paint, no burnish), apart from the occasional application of combing restricted to the upper part of the body and/or incisions at the base of the neck of storage jars. Ledge handles, both envelope-folded and vestigial, are absent, as are lamps, all diagnostic elements for this period. The nearest burial sites with which these assemblages from Shoham can be compared are: another tomb recently excavated at Shoham by Kletter (2002), a tomb at Nevallat (van den Brink and Lazar, in prep.) located c. 3 km southeast of Shoham (Fig. 8.4), the tombs at Azor (Ory 1944), located c. 12 km west of Shoham, and the tombs at Kibbutz Horshim (Gilboa and Yannai 1992), located c. 15 km north of Shoham.

The scanty Intermediate Bronze Age remains found in the Shoham caves are indicative of a nearby settlement during this period. Four contemporary settlement sites have been discovered recently in the vicinity of Shoham (see Fig. 8.4). One of these is located 1.5 km east of Shoham (E. Lass, pers. comm.). The second is located west of Tel Dalit and 3.5 km southeast of

Fig. 8.4. Intermediate Bronze Age sites in the vicinity of Shoham (North).

CHAPTER 8: THE INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Shoham at Nevallat/Khirbet Beit Kufa (North) (van den Brink et al. 2001:36, n. 2; Yekutieli 2002). Another site was identified below Iron Age strata at Tel Hadid Terrace, 4.5 km southeast of Shoham (E. Brand, pers.

111

comm.). Finally, Intermediate Bronze Age ceramics have turned up in various excavations at Tel Lod (van den Brink 2002:286, Str. III; in press; forthcoming: Table 1, Fig. 2).

NOTES 1

This is the equivalent of Albright’s (1933) MB I, Kenyon’s (1960) [Intermediate] EB/MB and Dever’s (1970) EB IV(a–c). 2 Amiran (1960) places Family A in the early part of the period, despite Albright’s (1961) objections. This now seems basically corroborated by the data provided by Oren and Yekutieli (1990). During the Ben-Gurion University Survey Expedition to North Sinai, Oren collected Family A material from 284 sites, sometimes found in direct association with Egyptian ceramics (Meidum bowls) dating from the late Old

Kingdom to early First Intermediate Period in Egypt, thus providing a date of c. 2250–2150 BCE for these assemblages (see Shaheen 1992). Dever (1970) placed the S(outh) Group in the later part of his EB IV (EB IVc), close to the beginning of the second millennium BCE. Recently, however, he has stipulated that the S Group and other regional Intermediate Bronze Age assemblages “were more geographical than chronological” (Dever 1995:296, n. 18), that is, perhaps they “were largely contemporary”.

REFERENCES Albright W.F. 1933. The Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim (AASOR 13). New Haven. Albright W.F. 1961. Abram the Hebrew. A New Archaeological Interpretation. BASOR 163:36–54. Amiran R. 1960. The Pottery of the Middle Bronze I in Palestine. IEJ 10:204–225. Brink E.C.M. van den. Forthcoming. Lod, Nevé Yaraq: from Top to Bottom. A Roman Pottery Kiln and Sparse Pottery Neolithic A (‘Lodian’) Remains. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den. In press. Late EB I Settlements and Sporadic Chalcolithic–PNA Remains at Tel Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den and Lazar D. In preparation. A Chalcolithic Habitation and Installation Site and Later Remains along Nahal Nevallat. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den, Liphschitz N., Lazar D. and Bonani G. 2001. Chalcolithic Dwelling Remains, Cup Marks and Olive (Olea europaea) Stones at Nevallat. IEJ 51:36–43. Dever W.G. 1970. The “Middle Bronze I” Period in SyriaPalestine. In J.A. Sanders ed. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. Garden City. Pp. 132–163.

Dever W.G. 1995. Social Structure in the Early Bronze IV Period in Palestine. In T.E. Levy ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Pp. 282–296. Gilboa E. and Yannai E. 1992. Intermediate Bronze Age Tombs at Horshim. ‘Atiqot 21:1*–8* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 173). Kenyon K.M. 1960. Excavations at Jericho I: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London. Kletter R. 2002. An Intermediate Bronze Age Tomb at Shoham. ‘Atiqot 43:25–28* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 254). Oren E.D. and Yekutieli Y. 1990. North Sinai during the MB I Period—Pastoral Nomadism and Sedentary Settlement. EI 21:6–22 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 101). Ory J. 1944. A Bronze Age Tomb near Yazur. QDAP 10:59–61. Shaheen A.M. 1992. A Possible Synchronism of EB IV/ MB I Ceramic Ware in Syro-Palestine and Egyptian Sites. Göttinger Miszellen 121:101–110. Yekutieli Y. 2002. Bet Nehemya. ESI 20:134*.

112

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK AND RAM GOPHNA

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

113

CHAPTER 9

THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES YORKE M. ROWAN

INTRODUCTION Excavations at the Shoham (North) caves recovered 102 groundstone artifacts. All of the artifacts discussed in this chapter are from Area A1, primarily from Cave 4 (n = 91, 89.2%), with only a few retrieved from Cave 1 (n = 4, 3.9%) and Cave 2 (n = 7, 6.9%).1 Based on the groundstone assemblages from all of the caves (Table 9.1), evidence of a simple, domestic occupation is very limited. This is seen in the very low numbers of grinding slabs, handstones, mortars and pestles, as well as other groundstone artifacts typically associated with domestic occupations, such as abraders (‘rubbers’) and large perforated rings. The majority of the recovered artifacts are basalt vessel fragments from Chalcolithic burial contexts. Most of the nonvessel groundstone objects were also manufactured from basalt, with the exception of a limestone palette, limestone pendant/tokens and two limestone stelae. Discussion of the groundstone assemblages from Shoham (N) is presented according to cave. The figures are arranged typologically.

CAVE ASSEMBLAGES Cave 1 Four groundstone artifacts were recovered from Cave 1: a virtually complete palette and three basalt vessel fragments, all from a mixed Chalcolithic/late EB I fill (L152; Tables 9.1, 9.2). The palette, made of soft white limestone, is trapezoidal in shape with a fairly flat cross section and profile, measuring 108 × 88 × 7–13 mm (Fig. 9.1:4). Use of the palette was primarily unifacial, with oblique striae running longitudinally on the slightly concave face. Edges and corners are rounded, not faceted or perpendicular to the planar faces. The morphology and use-wear patterns are similar to other Chalcolithic examples, such as those from

Bir es-Safadi and Abu Matar (Commenge, in press; Rowan, in press). The three vessel fragments are a base-ring fragment from a fenestrated stand and two rim fragments. The base-ring fragment is made of basalt with few vesicles. It is about 40 mm high and about 32 mm thick, with an original exterior diameter of c. 220–240 mm (Fig. 9.12:1). One of the vessel rim fragments is small, made of dense basalt and beveled on the edge (Fig. 9.6:1). The stance of the rim is almost vertical, but unfortunately the fragment is too small to estimate the vessel’s original diameter. Beveling of basalt vessel rims is an uncharacteristic modification of Chalcolithic vessels, but typical of EB I vessels, suggesting that this vessel may date to EB I (Braun 1990:87). The second rim fragment, clearly different from the previous example, is from a small (c. 80 mm rim diameter), open form vessel (Fig. 9.6:6). The more weathered state of the basalt and its brownish coloration support this distinction from the first rim. These three vessel fragments probably represent three different vessels. It is unlikely that the fenestrated stand is the base to which one of the rims belongs. The flared vessel’s rim diameter (c. 80 mm) is much smaller than that of the ring base (c. 220–240 mm), an unlikely combination based on the typically balanced, well-proportioned fenestrated stands. The beveled rim represents a vessel with a straight-walled stance, an even less likely aspect for fenestrated stands, which are at any rate virtually unknown from unmixed EB I contexts. Cave 2 Seven groundstone artifacts were recovered from Cave 2, four of which are vessel fragments. With the exception of the pendant or token, all of the artifacts are basalt. The pendant/token is a roughly triangular limestone piece, with a flat cross section and profile

114

YORKE M. ROWAN

(Fig. 9.2:3). This piece is well ground, measuring 64 × 28 × 6 mm, with vertical edges. Its function is unclear; there are no perforations for suspension, and though the narrow, almost pointed end may have been reground where drill marks existed previously, no traces remain. Similar artifacts are known from Gilat (Rowan et al., in press), referred to as ‘tokens’, as well as from Nahal Mishmar and Horbat Beter, referred to as ‘amulets’ (Dothan 1959:20; Bar-Adon 1980: Ill. 24.4). Alternatively, these might have been intended as game pieces or unfinished decorative objects. Another complete artifact is a cuboid-shaped, dense basalt nodule with at least three well-ground faces (49 × 47 × 44 mm; Fig. 9.4:4). The other sides of the nodule are relatively rough and convex, with little evidence of macroscopically-visible use wear. The flattened faces suggest this was used for some sort of grinding, and similar artifacts are referred to as rubbers (Amiran 1978:58, Pl. 80:9–11, 13–15), handstones (Wright 1992a:70), polishing stones (Dorrell 1983:552, 557; Fig. 230.3) or handstone grinders (Lee 1973:270, LB25b). The third non-vessel fragment is a relatively flat, bifacially drilled piece of dense basalt (Fig. 9.5:1). It was originally c. 40 mm in diameter (exterior), with an interior hole diameter of about 13 mm and a thickness of about 15 mm. It weighs 14 gm, which, assuming the piece comprises about one third of the original ring, allows an estimate of the original weight at about 40 gm. Similar artifacts are known from a variety of Chalcolithic and EB I contexts, including Arad (Amiran 1978: Pl. 76:7–27 ), Bir es-Safadi (Commenge, in press), Gilat (Rowan et al., in press), Nevé Ur (Perrot, Zori and Reich 1967: Figs. 13.7, 8), Tuleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973: LB513d) and ‘En Shadud (Braun 1985: Figs. 38.1, 3). Based on the small size and weight, it is very unlikely that this was a macehead, but the function of similar rings is unknown. They might have been used as flywheels for drills, but other functions, such as spindle whorls or loom weights, are also possibilities. Two of the four basalt vessel fragments are nondiagnostic of the original vessel form. One may be a rim fragment, but is too small to be certain (L128, B1447). The other is a vessel wall fragment made of dense basalt and well ground on the interior and exterior surfaces. Two small drill marks were placed next to each other, but do not deeply penetrate the vessel wall (Fig. 9.5:6). These may represent an effort to repair the original vessel, or an unfinished attempt to create a new object from the vessel wall fragment.

The two remaining vessel fragments are fenestratedstand leg fragments, probably from the same vessel (L129, B1371). Both are made of slightly vesicular basalt, triangular in cross section, with a well-ground exterior that curves inward slightly. Dimensions are 117 × 42 × 41 mm and 133 × 29 × 30 mm. The longer of the two has a broken joining ‘stem’ on the interior side of the leg, similar to that found in Cave 4 (Fig. 9.14:3), which would have joined other interior stems, presumably in similar fashion to that reconstructed from Cave 4 (Fig. 9.15). Cave 4 The majority of the groundstone artifacts originated in Cave 4, predominantly from Chalcolithic contexts (see Tables 9.1, 9.2). The 23 non-vessel fragments will be discussed first. Grinding Slab (n = 1) One grinding slab fragment (L204, B2051) was recovered from Cave 4. This unifacially ground fragment is made of very vesicular basalt, with a flat cross section and profile. Dimensions are 103 × 86 ×43 mm. Handstones (n = 3; Fig. 9.4:1, 3) Following Wright’s (1992a:67) definition, handstones are the upper, mobile grinding stone paired with the lower, larger querns and grinding slabs. One fragment of a dense basalt handstone was retrieved from a Chalcolithic fill (L209, B2082). This fragment, 75 × 39 × 24 mm, is well-ground unifacially with rounded edges and a flat cross section and profile. Another possible handstone fragment, also recovered from a Chalcolithic fill, is made of porous limestone (Fig. 9.4:3). This artifact, measuring 135 × 101 × 43 mm and flat in both cross section and profile, was probably used bifacially, although one side is more heavily ground. A third handstone fragment was found in a balk and probably dates to the Chalcolithic period (Fig. 9.4:1). Made from dense basalt (dimensions 95 × 57 × 30 mm) and well ground bifacially, it was apparently originally circular in shape. The edges are roughly convex and in cross section the artifact is convex/concave. The convex/concave aspect suggests a multi-functional tool, or the re-use of an earlier, functionally distinct tool.

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

Though handstones are commonly assumed to have functioned as the upper mobile grinding stone used in conjunction with large grinding slabs and querns for reduction of grains, variability within the type suggests that they may have had other uses as well. Similar small handstones have been observed used for hide-working (Adams 1989), but could also serve to crush temper, seeds and pigments. Discs (n = 4; Figs. 9.3; 9.5:7) One example, from a Chalcolithic fill, is a round, flat, roughly-chipped, red- and tan-banded limestone artifact (70 × 69 × 17 mm; Fig. 9.3:1). Similar artifacts made of chalk from Early Bronze Age contexts at Arad are referred to as ‘lids’ (Amiran 1978:58; Pl. 80:1–4). They are known from other sites as well, such as Gilat (Rowan et al., in press) and Tuleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973: LB511a). Two fragments join to form a single basalt disc (Fig. 9.3:2, 3), originally the base of a basalt bowl. Well ground bifacially and fairly flat in cross section, one side still retains the concavity of the bowl interior. Another disc-shaped artifact is also a reworked fragment of a basalt bowl (Fig. 9.5:7). The edges were reground and both sides are slightly concave. There is no evidence of attempts to drill this artifact. This may also have served as a handstone. The final artifact (L223, B2089), from a Chalcolithic pit, is an edge fragment made of dense basalt. The outer edge curves, suggesting the artifact was originally circular in shape. The dorsal surface is well ground, while the ventral side is still relatively rough. The piece is flat in cross section, suggesting this may have been the base of a basalt bowl. Perforated Discs (n = 3; Fig. 9.5:2–4) One example is a small (47 × 28 × 12 mm), roughly chipped basalt disc with bifacial drill marks that did not completely pierce the artifact (Fig. 9.5:2). Recovered from a balk and probably dating to the Chalcolithic period, the slight curvature in cross section, the thickness and the two well-ground faces suggest that this is a fragment of a vessel wall. It may have been intended for use as a spindle whorl, and the drilling may have been the cause of breakage. The second pierced artifact is also incompletely drilled bifacially. The fragment was originally the base of a basalt bowl, with the incised parallel lines

115

still visible (Fig. 9.5:3). The depth of the perforations is only about 10 mm and it appears the piece was abandoned before completion. This piece is further discussed under basalt vessels (see below). The third pierced artifact is also a fragment of a basalt bowl, probably originally the wall. One face was incompletely drilled (Fig. 9.5:4). Mortars (n = 2) Two mortar fragments were collected, both from the same Chalcolithic pit. One (L206, B2066) is the rim of a well-ground mortar/bowl, made of slightly vesicular basalt, with a maximum preserved wall thickness of 26 mm. Unfortunately, the rim length is too small to calculate an approximate diameter of the original vessel. The other fragment (L206, B2068) is the base of a mortar, also of low vesicular basalt, only roughly shaped on the exterior and moderately ground on the interior. Both of these pieces could be from the same mortar/bowl. Pendants/Tokens (n = 2; Fig. 9.2:1, 2) Two small, trapezoidal-shaped artifacts of ground limestone were recovered, their functions unknown. One is from a Chalcolithic fill and appears to be complete (dimensions 66 × 41 × 12 mm). This piece is well ground on both faces, with traces of striae along the chamfered juncture of one edge and face. The edges are also well ground, with some visible striae oriented longitudinally (Fig. 9.2:1). In profile, the artifact is slightly biconvex, a vertical edge on the wide end and tapering toward the narrow end. Another trapezoidal artifact from a Chalcolithic fill is made of soft white limestone, well ground, with a flat cross section and profile (Fig. 9.2:2). The edges are ground and perpendicular to the faces (dimensions 52 × 26/15 × 7 mm). Neither artifact exhibits traces of drilling indicative of use as a pendant, though it remains a possibility that they were intended as such and unfinished, or were entwined for suspension. Alternatively, these may have been counters or game pieces. Though rare, similar pieces are known from Tuleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973: LB9d), as well as Gilat (Rowan et al., in press). Unidentified (n = 2) Two pieces of groundstone do not fit any of the descriptive classes. Both were collected from a

116

YORKE M. ROWAN

Chalcolithic pit. One (L206, B2066) is a slender piece of dense basalt measuring 82 × 31 × 14 mm that may have a ground edge. The other (L206, B2060) is a ground limestone piece (dimensions 71 × 54 × 18 mm) of roughly trapezoidal shape and a plano-convex cross section, though the convexity is very slight. On the flat face, a drill mark was made relatively close to the center of the artifact, but does not penetrate very deeply. This drill mark may simply be the result of the artifact serving as a surface for a bow drill, but this is purely speculation and the fineness of grinding argues for an additional unrelated function. Palettes (n = 4; Figs. 9.1:1–3; 9.2:4) All the palettes are fragments of hard limestone, thin and flat in cross section/profile and well ground. Three are from the same Chalcolithic fill (L227), the fourth is from a deeper Chalcolithic fill (L220) above the bedrock. The largest fragment, perhaps reground, is roughly trapezoidal in shape, measuring 86 × 78 to 64 × 6 mm. Two opposing edges are fairly vertical, while a third edge is uneven and appears to be a reground break. The fourth edge is unworked and tapers to a point, an unusual aspect for a palette (Fig. 9.2:4). Though there are longitudinal striae on one face, the overall impression indicates less use and care in manufacture than the other palette fragments. Another fragment comprises two conjoined pieces forming the corner of a palette (Fig. 9.1:2). The two unbroken edges are almost vertical, with slight convexity. This piece, measuring 55 × 46 × 7 mm, is well ground, almost polished, with one side showing unidirectional striae and more lustrous than the other. The finest ground palette fragment exhibits primarily unifacial use, with a very slight depression near the broken edge (Fig. 9.1:3). On this face there are pronounced longitudinal striae; on the reverse face the striae are both longitudinal and oblique. The edges are well ground and almost vertical and the cross section/ profile is flat. Judging by the fine grinding, the type of limestone and the squared edges, this piece may belong to the same palette as the previous fragment from the same locus and basket. This piece measures 62 × 64 × 10 mm. The final limestone palette fragment is well ground, flat in cross section/profile, with well-ground vertical edges (Fig. 9.1:1). Some longitudinal striae are visible. This corner fragment measures 60 × 45 × 9 mm.

Stelae (n = 2; Figs. 9.19, 9.20) Two stelae were recovered from Cave 4. Both are made of limestone, presumably of local origin, and were modified over the entire surface to achieve the final shape. One stele (Fig. 9.19) was found lying flat in the southeastern part of the cave, embedded in a matrix of loose soil containing many Chalcolithic pottery sherds and ossuary fragments. It appears to have been carefully shaped, with final smoothing and subsequent abrasion removing most traces of chipping and flaking. Its maximum length is 1.15 m, with a thickness of 0.30– 0.32 m at maximum girth. One surface is very flat and smooth, while the other is relatively flat but with some indentations and rough areas, possibly post-primary use damage. The sides taper towards both ends. One end is convex and rounded. It tapers gradually, forming a roughly trihedral cross section. This end is more carefully finished than the other, which tapers only slightly from the maximum girth. On the underside of this end, two small indentations or ‘dimples’ (3 and 6 cm in diameter) are spaced approximately 2 cm apart. A third, smaller and shallower dimple, may be natural. Intuitively, the more tapered end appears to have been the top when the stele was upright; however, it is also possible that the tapered end was fashioned in such a manner for embedding into the cave floor. The dimples would then have been on the top of the stone and may have served some functional purpose. The second stele (Fig. 9.20) was recovered ex situ among the stone debris of the roof which had been mechanically removed during the second season of excavation (see Chap. 3). Like the previous one, this stele was carefully shaped by chipping and flaking and then smoothed, in this case with clear traces of the chipping still visible. It is more slender than the previous stele; its maximum length is 1.25–1.28 m, with a thickness of 25 cm at maximum width. Similar to the previous one, one side is very flat and smoothed; the other side is convex but flattened and angular along the margins. Some rough indentations that may have resulted from damage subsequent to its primary use are visible. The sides taper gradually towards both ends, which are similar in dimensions. Neither end is absolutely flat but rather they each slant in opposite directions. It is not possible to say which end would have been upright. Stelae are known from mortuary contexts, particularly those of secondary burials in caves (see Excursus 1). Examples are known from the Chalcolithic mortuary

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

caves at Azor and Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 77.5; 117; 134:3), Bené Beraq (Kaplan 1963), Giv‘atayim (Sussman and Ben Arieh 1966) and Shiqmim (Alon and Levy 1989:183). More recently, excavations at the mortuary site of Kissufim Road uncovered many stelae of various shapes, most found in the bulldozer dump before the salvage excavation was initiated (Fabian and Goren 2002:44; Figs. 6.1– 6.4). Three examples were discovered standing upright in situ associated with a large collective burial of secondary remains that establishes the context without doubt (Fabian and Goren 2002: Figs. 2.19, 2.20). Two of the stones were flaked from slabs of Eocene chalk to create elongated shapes, while the third is an oval wadi pebble with minimal flaking. The two stelae from Shoham most resemble the rectangular type from Kissufim, although they are much larger.

VESSELS A total of 67 basalt vessel fragments, excluding those that were reworked (n = 5), were recovered from Cave 4, 91% of the total vessel fragments recovered from the excavations in the Shoham (N) caves. Basalt vessel fragments were divided into three general categories: fenestrated-stand fragments, rim and wall fragments and bowl bases. A list of these fragments and summarized data for each is found in Table 9.2, with the exception of five vessel fragments that were reworked and listed in Table 9.1. The description and variation of these fragments is discussed first, followed by a brief discussion of the estimates upon which the minimum number of individual vessels (MNI) is based. Fenestrated Stands and Pedestal Vessels (n = 35) Bowls set on a stand, consisting either of legs joined at the bottom by a ring, or a hollow pedestal with cut out ‘windows’, are generally referred to as fenestrated stands, pedestal bowls, or sometimes incense burners. This unique feature of their design allows unequivocal identification of many fragments. However, rim and wall fragments generally are not diagnostic of vessel type, thus the elements characteristic of fenestrated stands are of four types: legs (n = 16), leg/base rings (n = 2), medial sections (n = 6) and base rings (n = 11). All the base-ring and leg/base-ring fragments were sufficiently complete to estimate original exterior diameter (presented in Table 9.2). These diameter

117

estimates fall into three broad ranges: five are estimated at about 180–200 mm, four are estimated at about 220–240 mm and four range roughly between 280 and 300 mm. Only one of these fragments bears incised decoration (Fig. 9.17:4). This decoration, finely done and more elaborate than that on most Chalcolithic basalt vessels, consists of double rows of adjoining chevrons forming a pattern of empty diamonds between the chevrons. This motif appears on the lower section of the base ring and is similar to that found on some leg fragments. Immediately above the chevron pattern is a ‘herringbone’ pattern—two rows of incised parallel lines touching at an acute angle. These pieces belong to a single vessel (see the discussion of minimum number of individuals, below). Five, possibly six, medial fragments of fenestrated stands were recovered. All of these fragments have been reground, particularly where the legs connected to the bowl base. This regrinding sometimes obscures all traces of this connecting point, leaving only a rounded base. The best example of this is a base fragment with a relief band (width c. 8 mm) around the bottom exterior (Fig. 9.10:2). It appears likely that this originally had a fenestrated stand for two reasons. First, the atypically rounded base may have been formed by regrinding where the legs connected. Second, the presence of a raised band is a decorative element commonly found on the medial area of fenestrated stands, particularly those from Gilat (Alon and Levy 1989: Fig. 12.3; Rowan et al., in press), Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.1:9, 10), Tuleilat Ghassul (Lee 1979:267, LB12e) and Wadi Gazzeh Site A (Macdonald 1932: Pls. XXIII.25, XL.34). This type of decorative motif is unknown on plain basalt bowls with flat bases. Several other fragments are probably also modified medial fragments but were ground so thoroughly to have removed all traces of the legs (see Fig. 9.10:1). Another fragment (L178, B1562) is clearly the medial section of a fenestrated stand, but the interior section was ground to a high polish, suggesting this might have been used as a palette or for very fine grinding. Regrinding and other modification of broken basalt vessels is well attested from sites such as Gilat (Rowan et al., in press), Abu Matar and Bir es-Safadi (Commenge, in press) and Tuleilat Ghassul (Mallon, Koeppel and Neuville 1934: Fig. 23.7). Conservation and refashioning of basalt artifacts was also recognized at the site of Abu Hamid, and several vessels that exhibit the same raised band around the base of the vessel are

118

YORKE M. ROWAN

probably reworked fenestrated stands (Wright 1992b: Figs. 5-63a, 5-65a). The fragments of supporting ‘legs’ from fenestrated stands exhibit some interesting aspects. Six bear incised decoration, which would seem a relatively high number; however, at least half of these are from a single vessel (discussed further under minimum number of individuals, below). Although incised decoration on fenestrated leg fragments is unusual, there are examples from sites such as Tuleilat Ghassul (Mallon, Koeppel and Neuville 1934: Fig. 23.5, 6, 8) and Abu Matar (Commenge, in press). The majority of these leg fragments also seem more finely ground and slender than is typical of Chalcolithic fenestrated stands. Finally, two fragments provided the first evidence of an unusual sub-type of fenestrated stand previously unknown from Chalcolithic sites in the southern Levant (van den Brink, Rowan and Braun 1999). Both are cylindrically shaped, with roughly round cross sections. One (Fig. 9.14:3) is a central-pillar fragment made of slightly vesicular basalt, roughly ground, c. 37 mm thick, with four broken protrusions at the base where ‘stems’ or supports emanated from the main ‘leg’. Related to this central-pillar fragment is an unusual leg fragment (Fig. 9.14:4), which has a small ‘stem’ or connector fragment on the interior. This stem on the leg interior connected to the central ‘leg/pillar,’ serving a purely decorative function, as it would not have provided significant additional support. Another, smaller central ‘leg/pillar’ fragment (Fig. 9.11:1) is thinner (c. 20 mm thick), made of dense, well-ground basalt, and has three ‘stems’ broken off at the base. Associated fragments are discussed in greater detail in connection with MNI estimates. As it seems unlikely that such an unusual type could have been missed during excavations of the more southerly sites (such as those of the northern Negev), it remains to be seen if this sub-type is specific to the Shoham region (for a related find from Nahal Qana Cave, see Gopher and Tsuk 1996: Fig. 4.16.3). Rim and Wall Fragments The majority of the 18 rim fragments are flared, from open bowls. These rims could have been from bowls or fenestrated stands and thus are not usually diagnostic of vessel form. Only ten of these rims were large enough to estimate the diameter of the original vessel (Table

9.2). They do not fall into distinct size groups, which may result, in part, from the difficulty in determining stone-vessel rim diameters, particularly those with a widely flared stance. Two of these rims are distinctive. One (L181, B1596) is smaller in diameter (c. 140 mm) relative to the other rim fragments, the other (L165, B1413) is a straight-walled vessel with a flat, beveled rim. Beveled rims are typical of EB I bowls (Braun 1990:87) and it is interesting to note that this beveled rim was recovered from what was originally thought to be an early EB I floor. Further analysis indicated this was a mixed erosional layer that included some early EB I material such as Gray Burnished Ware. Only four fragments exhibit the incised chevron design on the rim interior, rather standardized, varying only slightly in execution (Figs. 9.8; 9.9:1). Only one is preserved such that the original rim diameter may be estimated (c. 300 mm; Fig. 9.8:1). Another example also has a more elaborate incised decoration on the exterior, which, though rare, is also known from such Chalcolithic sites as Abu Matar (Perrot 1968: Fig. 849; Commenge, in press), Grar (Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.1:2, 6), and, less similar, Horbat Beter (Dothan 1959: Fig. 19:1). This pattern comprises a series of parallel lines at an acute angle to the rim, below which is a blank band of about 1 cm, followed by concentric parallel lines (Fig. 9.17:2). These parallel lines are broken by what look like the tops of triangles or chevrons. Ten basalt-vessel wall fragments were collected, excluding the five modified fragments from Cave 4 previously described. Two of these fragments deserve specific mention. One (L206, B2066) is a very small fragment of dense basalt. One side is fairly rough, while the other was ground to a high polish, unlike typical vessels, but similar to the polish on possible tournettes from Arad (Amiran 1978: Pl. 77:9, 10) and Qiryat ‘Ata (Rowan 2003). The other fragment (L220, B2085) exhibits unusual relief decoration on the exterior surface. This decoration comprises two very pronounced, raised horizontal ridges, which, unlike the bands around the medial sections of fenestrated stands, are quite square in section (Fig. 9.10:5). The ridges, battered and chipped, are 3.5–4 cm apart and raised about 5 mm above the exterior surface. No parallels for this decoration are known from the literature, and unfortunately, no diagnostic elements are preserved on the fragment to suggest the vessel type.

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

Bowl Base Fragments Five basalt bowl base fragments were recovered from Cave 4. Two conjoining pieces belong to the same vessel (L181, B1507 and L171, B1508). This base fragment is made of bifacially well-ground, dense basalt, with a diameter of 105 mm (Fig. 9.3:2, 3) and appears to have been reground to serve some other purpose, although the concavity of the original bowl interior is preserved. A small base fragment (L166, B1403), produced from slightly vesicular basalt, is well ground on the interior and exterior. It is probable that this is a fragment from the medial section of a fenestrated stand, but it is too small to be certain. Another example (L166, B1419) has fine horizontal lines incised at the base, a decoration known on a few basalt vessels from Abu Matar (Commenge, in press) and Horbat Beter (Dothan 1959: Fig. 110.3). This fragment is further discussed under ‘pierced discs’ (above). A possible basalt bowl base (L206, B2057) is thick and slightly concave on both faces, but could also be a modified wall fragment. The final fragment is from a flat, disproportionately thin bowl base (Fig. 9.9:4). Unfortunately, this fragment is too small for a diameter estimate, although the thinness distinguishes it from the other base fragments. Minimum Numbers of Basalt Vessels All basalt vessel fragments were spread on tables and an attempt was made to match fragments. A number of pieces were found to join and others were clearly from the same vessel despite a lack of joining breaks. For this reason, an estimate of the number of vessels is based on reconstruction and metric attributes of diagnostic pieces, as well as decoration, stance and workmanship. The minimum number of individual vessels (MNI) is estimated separately for each cave. The probability that the three fragments from Cave 1 represent three different vessels was discussed. Only four vessel fragments from Cave 2 were recovered; two are fenestrated-stand leg fragments that could come from the same vessel. The other two fragments, a pierced wall fragment (L128, B1409) and a possible rim fragment (L128, B1447) could also originate from the same vessel. Thus, no more than one fenestrated vessel can be estimated from Cave 2. Establishing the possible number of vessels represented by the 72 fragments from Cave 4 is more problematic. Although rim fragments are commonly

119

used to calculate MNI, the fenestrated stand fragments are more characteristic of vessel type than rims (which could belong to either a regular bowl or fenestrated stand) and represent more distinctive elements. There are very few medial fragments of fenestrated stands and these, along with leg fragments, were eliminated as they could duplicate other fragments of the same vessel. A number of fragments were found to join and others could reliably be matched by decoration, basalt and size; these matching pieces are discussed first. Pieces that belong to an unusual four-legged fenestrated stand include the center leg/pillar (Fig. 9.14:3) and three base-ring pieces with surviving leg fragments (Fig. 9.14:1, 2, 4). The reconstructed vessel (Fig. 9.15) is a new, previously unknown sub-type. Four-legged fenestrated stands are relatively unusual, but there are examples such as those from Giv‘at Oranim (Sheftelowitz 2003), Abu Matar (Commenge, in press) and one from Gilat (Rowan et al., in press). What makes this example particularly unusual is the central leg/pillar that extends from the bottom of the bowl and connects with a stem from each of the four legs. This extra ‘leg’ is an added motif that, while serving no function, demanded an even greater effort for an already labor-intensive artifact. The reconstruction of this vessel strengthens our interpretation of a second three-legged fenestrated stand with a central leg/pillar (Fig. 9.11:1–4). Four fragments seem to belong to this vessel, including the central piece which has three broken-off stems that joined to each leg, a base-ring fragment, a base-ring/ leg fragment and a leg fragment with a broken interior stem protrusion. Though the two base-ring fragments are the only pieces that join, it is clear that these are all from the same vessel (Fig. 9.11:5). The original basering diameter was about 200 mm. A number of pieces of a regular fenestrated stand, three of which are leg fragments, fit together as shown in Fig. 9.17:3a–c. Additional fragments that are also part of this vessel include a base-ring/leg fragment (Fig. 9.17:4) and two decorated leg fragments (Fig. 9.17:1 and L185, B.*). All of these pieces are more extensively decorated with incised designs than usually found on basalt vessels, particularly fenestrated stands, although the motifs are typically Chalcolithic. A number of features are remarkable about this otherwise typical fenestrated stand. One is the extremely thin, graceful structure of the legs, which are so carefully ground that the interior aspect of the legs is faceted.

120

YORKE M. ROWAN

On the exterior, the typical chevron pattern is repeated on both sides of each leg, creating a blank diamond pattern. Along the sides of the legs are parallel lines at an acute angle to the edge (Fig. 9.17:1, 3a–c). This pattern is repeated on the lower exterior part of the base ring; just above the diamond pattern on the base ring is a ‘herringbone’ design. Based on the similarity of the extensive exterior designs, the basalt and the fine finish, it is possible that a widely flaring rim (Fig. 9.17:2) with incised chevrons on the interior and designs on the exterior is from the same vessel. This rim fragment is too small to estimate the original diameter of the rim. Without an actual connection, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty that this is the same vessel, particularly because such elaborate decorations are highly unusual on the bowl section of fenestrated stands. However, it can be assumed that the upper section of such a fenestrated stand would be elaborately decorated as well. Two additional base-ring fragments (Fig. 9.18) fit together. One is primarily a leg fragment that extends to the base ring. This fragment has a number of unusual, deeply incised grooves around the base (Fig. 9.18:1), which appear to be the result of repairs rather than decoration. These deep scores may have been intended for bindings in an effort to hold together fragmented or cracked parts of the base ring (as shown in Fig. 9.18:1–3). Based on these two connecting fragments, the original exterior diameter of this ring base can be estimated at 280–300 mm. Two base-ring fragments (Fig. 9.12:3, 4) belong to a different vessel, although the estimated exterior diameter (c. 280 mm) is close to that of the previous example. The basalt and the thin, finely-ground, nearly square cross section of the fragment is dissimilar enough to be considered a separate vessel. A number of fragments may belong to one vessel, though none of the fragments join. Two fragments from the same basket (L220, B2093) form a base ring with an original exterior diameter of 220–240 mm (Fig. 9.16:6, 7). Five other leg fragments (Fig. 9.16:1–5) are probably from the same vessel, though without actual connections this remains speculative. Two additional fenestrated vessels may be postulated based on the remaining base-ring fragments. One clearly distinct vessel, represented by a base-ring fragment (L209, B2065), is larger, not as finely ground as the others, and had an original exterior diameter of about 180 mm. The other is represented by two

fragments, each with estimated exterior diameters of about 240 mm (Figs. 9.12:2; 9.13:1). Based on the above analysis, an estimate of about eight fenestrated stands seems reasonable. A few fragments, clearly not the remains of fenestrated stands, represent basalt bowls with simple bases. One example, mentioned previously under the discussion of ‘pierced discs’, is a base fragment of a flat-based bowl with fine, horizontal, parallel incisions at the very bottom of the wall exterior. This piece was drilled bifacially, though the perforations were never completed (Fig. 9.5:3). An additional fragment from a flat-based bowl has a disproportionately thin base (Fig. 9.9:4). This fragment is too small for a diameter estimate, but is much too thin to be related to the previous base fragment. The final base, comprised of two joining fragments (discussed under ‘discs’ above), is probably the reground base of a basalt bowl (note ground edges in section, Fig. 9.3:2). It is too thick and large to be related to either of the previous bases. Another possible basalt bowl base (L206, B2057) is thick and slightly concave on each face. It is unclear if this is a base fragment, thus it is not included in the MNI. Based on these fragments, three basalt bowls with flat bases can be estimated.

CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the groundstone assemblage indicates only a limited domestic use of the Shoham caves, mainly Cave 4, during the Chalcolithic period. The bulk of the assemblage comprises basalt artifacts which presumably do not reflect a standard domestic assemblage. The assemblage from Cave 4 is dominated by basalt vessels. From Cave 1, only fragments of basalt vessels and a palette were retrieved. Cave 2, while producing a few artifacts possibly typical of domestic utilization (e.g., a cuboid handstone/rubber and a basalt ring fragment), is also dominated by basalt vessel fragments. Admittedly, we do not know the function of any of the basalt vessels, but there are strong indications that they were imbued with a certain status or prestige. For example, basalt is a heavy material to transport any distance. In addition, basalt, although not as hard as flint (Mohs hardness scale 6 vs 7, respectively; Wright 1992b:114), must be worked with stone tools with a greater compressive strength and density, such as dense (non-vesicular) basalt (Hayden

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

1987:18). Thus, it is unlikely that typical Chalcolithic flint tools (axes, chisels, choppers, etc.) could be used to reduce the basalt cobbles from which the vessels were produced, although experimental work is required to test this assumption. In contrast, producing vessels from limestone, which is far softer than flint, would be easier and more accessible to anyone possessing the flint tools commonly found during the Chalcolithic period (contra Gilead 1995:319). Thus, neither basalt outcrops nor the tools required to reduce basalt were easily accessible. Finally, the finishing, form and decorative motifs of the vessels are typically more elaborate and extensive than, for example, limestone pebble mortars. It is also interesting to note the greater proportion of breakage of the basalt vessels in contrast to other groundstone artifacts. This phenomenon is not unique to Shoham; a higher incidence of basalt fragmentation in contrast to other stone artifacts was also observed in the burial contexts in Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996). This is true also of the Abu Hamid groundstone assemblage, where it was attributed to conservation and reutilization of a non-local material (Wright 1992b:250). This further supports the interpretation that these were valued objects. The association of the vessels with burial contexts suggests that they may have performed some function, whether symbolic or utilitarian, connected with interments. Perhaps they were burial offerings, or objects involved in mortuary practices. It may also be significant that based on the estimated MNI, fenestrated stands comprise the higher proportion of basalt bowls. There seem to be at least two major types of basalt fenestrated pedestal bowls represented during the Chalcolithic period; the first is the well-balanced, symmetrical open form bowl on three or, infrequently, four legs, joined at the base by a ring, typical of the Be’er Sheva‘ Basin sites but also found elsewhere. The second is the shorter, less flared version, more aptly termed ‘fenestrated’ because the bowl rests on a hollow stand with ‘windows’ cut into it. The spatial and chronological distribution of these types, if they are truly separate forms, has yet to be discussed in depth, but the

121

second type may be more typical of the Besor region sites such as Gilat, Grar and the Wadi Gazzeh sites, and possibly Tuleilat Ghassul. The difference between these two types of pedestal bowls, and the possibility that they represent chronological differences, has been previously recognized (Amiran and Porat 1984:12). For the present discussion, it must suffice to note that the majority of the Shoham fragments are clearly of the first type, tripod stands with finely ground, thin ‘legs’ and distinctive base rings. Only two apparently modified medial fragments appear to be similar to the second type of ‘fenestrated’ stands. Commonly found at sites dated to the Chalcolithic and EB I in the southern Levant (Amiran and Porat 1984; Braun 1990; Gilead 1995), basalt vessels appear in a variety of contexts, suggesting that they are not easily characterized as either domestic/utilitarian implements (Gilead 1995:319–320) or ritual equipment (Amiran and Porat 1984:13). There are cave and burial sites where few or no basaltic vessels were recovered, such as Azor (Ben-Tor 1975), Palmahim (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980), Bené Beraq (Kaplan 1963) and the Nahal Mishmar hoard (Bar-Adon 1980). Some of the most elaborate basalt vessels are found in mortuary contexts, such as in Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher et al. 1990; Gopher and Tsuk 1996), at Bab edh-Dhra (Schaub and Rast 1989) and the spectacular finds from Peqi‘in Cave (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997). Others are found in clearly ritual contexts, although not necessarily connected to human burials, such as at Abu Matar and Bir es-Safadi (Perrot 1955; Commenge, in press). The fenestrated pedestal bowls are particularly tempting to propose as one of the important symbols of the Chalcolithic period, based on their non-utilitarian design (in terms of structure, the stand is less than ideal for heavy food preparation or grinding), and may well represent an important cultural artifact beyond the utilitarian sphere. Nevertheless, more systematic analysis and publication of basalt vessels, their contextual associations and their typical associations in space and time are required before we can hope to understand their role in the lives of the prehistoric populations.

122

YORKE M. ROWAN

1

2

0

2

3 4 0

5

Fig. 9.1. Limestone palettes. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

1

4

220

2088

Fragment, finely ground

2

4

227

2099.1

Fragment, finely ground

3

4

227

2099.2

Fragment, finely ground

4

1

152

1363

Complete, well ground

2

1 0

3

2

Fig. 9.2. Limestone geometric pieces. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

1

4

177

1579

Pendant/token, well ground, bi-convex

2

4

231

2108

Pendant/token, well ground

3

2

129

1476

Pendant/token, well ground

4

4

227

2099.3

Palette fragment?, narrow end appears broken and reground

4

0

4

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

1 2–3

0

0

2

5

Fig. 9.3. Cave 4: discs. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

227

2099

Roughly chipped edges, not ground

2–3

171, 181

1508, 1507

Basalt edge fragment, joins with L181, B1507, a reground base

2 1

3

4

0

5

Fig. 9.4. Handstones. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

1

4

232

2109

Handstone, dense basalt, well ground

2

4

164

1421

Pebble, flat, ovoid pebble, ground, with concavity

3

4

184

2001

Handstone, limestone, bifacially ground

4

2

128

1424

Handstone/rubber, dense basalt, cuboid, three faces ground

123

124

YORKE M. ROWAN

1

2

3

4

6

7

5 0

2

Fig. 9.5. Pierced basalt stones and reworked basalt vessel fragments. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

1

2

129

1534

Pierced fragment, dense basalt, bifacially drilled

2

4

232

2109

Pierced fragment, probably a vessel, incompletely drilled bifacially

3

4

166

1419

Pierced, basalt vessel base fragment, incompletely drilled bifacially

4

4

166

1421

Pierced, basalt vessel fragment, incompletely drilled unifacially

5

4

171

1484

Vessel fragment, reworked

6

2

128

1409

Pierced, basalt vessel fragment, with two drill marks unifacially

7

4

206

2066

Reworked, basalt vessel fragment, reground

2

1

3

5 4 7 0

10

6

Fig. 9.6. Basalt vessel rim fragments. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

1

1

152

1257

Beveled rim

5

4

216

2077

Open form

2

4

165

1413

Beveled rim

6

1

152

1356

Open form

3

4

206

2066

Open form

7

4

220

2093

Flared open form

4

4

181

1596

Open form

125

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

3

1

2 4

0

10

5

Fig. 9.7. Cave 4: basalt vessel rim fragments. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

206

2052

Flared, open form, same vessel as L192, B2028

2

192

2028

Flared, open form, same vessel as L206, B2052

3

180

1585

Flared, open form, probably same vessel as L198, B2040; traces of soot on the inside

4

198

2040

Flared, open form, probably same vessel as L180, B1585; traces of soot on the inside

5

178

1562

Flared, open form; incised decoration on inside of rim

1 0

0

2 0

2

Fig. 9.8. Cave 4: basalt vessel rim fragments. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

220

2085

Flared, incised chevron on interior of rim

2

185

2071

Flared, incised chevron on interior of rim

2

10

126

YORKE M. ROWAN

1 0

2

3

0

10

4

2

Fig. 9.9. Cave 4: basalt vessel fragments. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

209

2080

Rim fragment, very flared, with incised chevron on interior of rim

2

230

2107

Rim fragment, flared, open form, shown joined with L180, B1597

3

220

2088

Rim fragment, flared, same vessel as L180, B1597 and L230, B2107 (not illustrated)

4

219

2084

Base fragment, flat

1

5

4

2

0

3

10

Fig. 9.10. Cave 4: basalt vessel fragments. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

166

1433

Base fragment, reground medial section of fenestrated stand

2

228

2100

Base fragment, probably reground medial section of fenestrated stand, with band in relief

3

220

2093

Medial fragments of fenestrated stand, 3 legs broken and reground; inside polished

4

166

1433

Medial fragment of fenestrated stand, leg broken and reground

5

220

2085

Wall fragment, bands in relief; inside polished

127

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

1

3

2

0

4

4

Fig. 9.11. Cave 4: basalt vessel fragments from a single vessel. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

181

1586

Central ‘leg/pillar’ support of fenestrated stand

2

169

1456

Base-ring/leg fragment of fenestrated stand, joins with No. 3

3

181

1587

Base-ring/leg fragment of fenestrated stand, joins with No. 2

4

169

1560

Leg fragment of fenestrated stand with protrusion

5

5

Reconstruction, fenestrated stand

0

1

4

2

4

3

Fig. 9.12. Basalt vessel base-ring fragments. No.

Cave

Locus

Basket

Description

1

1

152

1327

Base-ring fragment of fenestrated stand

2

4

166

1432

Base-ring fragment of fenestrated stand

3

4

169

1574

Base-ring fragment, joins with No. 4

4

4

185

2071

Base-ring fragment, joins with No. 3

128

YORKE M. ROWAN

0

10

1

5

4

3

2

Fig. 9.13. Cave 4: basalt fenestrated stand fragments. No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

225

2102

Base-ring fragment

2

210

2063

Leg fragment

3

180

1583

Leg fragment

4

207

2055

Leg fragment

5

191

2019

Leg fragment

3 1

0

2

4

4

Fig. 9.14. Cave 4, L169: basalt fenestrated stand fragments from a single vessel. No.

Basket

Description

1

1456

Fenestrated stand, base-ring/leg fragment, joins with No. 2

2

*

Base-ring fragment, joins with No. 1

3

1574

Central leg/pillar or fragment; joins with No. 4

4

1560

Base-ring/leg fragment with protrusion on interior of leg that joins with central pillar fragment No. 3

129

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

0

4

Fig. 9.15. Cave 4, L169: reconstruction of fenestrated stand illustrated in Fig. 9.14.

1

2

3

4

7

6 0

10

Fig. 9.16. Cave 4: basalt fenestrated stand fragments, possibly from a single vessel.

5

130

YORKE M. ROWAN

2

1

4

a

b

c 3

0

10

Fig. 9.17. Cave 4: basalt fenestrated stand fragments, probably from a single vessel.

1

3 2 0

10

Fig. 9.18. Cave 4, L169, B1574: basalt fenestrated stand fragments.

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES



Fig. 9.16 No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

180

1593

Leg fragment

2

220

2088

Leg fragment

3

206

2066

Leg fragment

4

169

1576

Leg fragment

5

169

1576

Leg fragment

6

220

2093

Base-ring fragment

7

220

2093

Base-ring fragment


Fig. 9.17 No.

Locus

Basket

Description

1

185

2071

Leg fragment; incised decoration

2

220

2093

Flared rim with interior and exterior incised decoration

3a

175

1589

Leg fragment with incised decoration, joins with No. 3b

3b

230

2107

Leg fragment with incised decoration, joins with Nos. 3a and 3c

3c

225

2096

Leg fragment with incised decoration, joins with No. 3b

4

209

2092

Base-ring/leg fragment with incised decoration on exterior


Fig. 9.18 No.

Description

1

Leg fragment, deep incisions (for repair straps?); joins with No. 2

2

Ring fragment, joins with leg/ring base No. 1

3

Reconstruction

131

132

YORKE M. ROWAN

0

20

Fig. 9.19. Cave 4. Limestone stele (L169a, B1670). Ground, smoothed, traces of flaking remain. Tapers at one end; other end has shallow dimples on underside.

133

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

0

20

Fig. 9.20. Cave 4. Limestone stele found in stone debris. Ground, smoothed, tapers toward both ends.

Palette

Rubber

Token?

Ring

Disc

Grinding slab

Handstone

Handstone

Handstone?

Mortar

Mortar

Palette

Palette

Palette

Palette

Pendant/token

Token?

Perforated disc

Unidentified

Unidentified

Pebble

Stele

Stele

1

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

169a

164

206

206

232

231

177

220

227

227

227

206

206

184

209

232

204

227

129

129

128

152

Locus

1607

1421

2066

2060

2109

2108

1579

2088

2099

2099

2099

2066

2068

2001

2082

2109

2051

2099

1534

1476

1424

1363-1

Basket

* C = Complete, F = Fragment, I = Incomplete

Artifact Type

Cave No.

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone?

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone

Limestone?

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Basalt

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Basalt

Limestone

Material

C

C

C

F

C?

F

C

C

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

C

F

C

C

I

Condition*

128

115

82

71

47

52

66

60

86

62

55

90

57

135

75

95

103

64

49

108

Length (mm)

25

30

31

54

28

26

41

45

78

64

46

57

55

101

39

57

86

28

47

88

Width (mm)

25

32

14

18

12

7

12

9

6

10

7

26

28

43

24

30

43

17

15

6

44

13

Thickness (mm)

47

70

40

Diam. (mm)

Elongated

Elongated

Ovoid

Trapezoidal

Trapezoidal

Trapezoidal

Trapezoidal

Round

Trapezoidal

Cuboid

Trapezoidal

Shape

Rectangular

Trihedral

Flat

Planoconvex

Flat

Flat

Biconvex

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Concave/ convex

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Round

Flat

Cross Section

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Biconvex

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Cuboid

Flat

Profile

Table 9.1. Groundstone Artifacts from All Caves (excluding basalt vessel fragments).

Ground, smoothed, tapered toward both ends

Ground, smoothed, traces of flaking remain. Tapers at one end; other end has shallow dimples on under side.

Unifacially concave

Thin fragment—probably ground

Unfinished unifacial perforation

Unfinished bifacial perforation, probably vessel fragment

Well ground, square edges

Geometric, well ground

Edges well ground, longitudinal striae

One side ground

Well-worked, unifacial, longitudinal striae

Bifacially ground, one face more polished

Rim fragment, fairly straight wall

Base fragment, roughly shaped exterior

Bifacially ground

Unifacially ground

Bifacially ground, edges convex

Utilized unifacially

Rough chipped edges, not ground

Rough ground

Well-ground, square edges, pendant?

Three faces ground

Rounded corners, primarily unifacial with striae

Modification

134 YORKE M. ROWAN

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

4

4

4

4

4

Re-worked

4

4

Pierced wall

4

Pedestal bowl stand

Pierced disc

4

4

Disc

4

Pedestal bowl stand

Vessel

2

4

Vessel

2

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

2

4

Pedestal bowl stand

2

Re-worked

Vessel

1

Pedestal bowl stand

Vessel

1

4

Fenestrated stand

1

4

Artifact Type

Cave No.

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Wall

Wall?

Wall

Base?

Wall?

Wall?

Rim?

Leg

Leg

Rim

Rim

Ring base

Fragment Element

210

207

206

191

181

180

180

169

169

169

206

171

166

166

223

128

128

129

129

152

152

152

Locus

2063

2055

2066

2019

1586

1597

1583

1576

1574

1574

2066

1484

1421

1419

2089

1409

1447

1371

1371

1356

1257

1327

Basket

93

92

55

35

67

62

108

141

135

82

43

46

20

75

42

36

62

133

117

45

23

88

Length (mm)

39

41

30

41

19

36

46

27

29

37

40

42

11

68

42

33

27

29

42

66

46

40

Width (mm)

30

40

20

32

19

28

44

30

27

37

19

23

6

42

16

14

16

30

41

15

13

32

Thickness (mm)

80

Rim Diam. (mm) 240

16

15

13

32

40

20

32

28

30

27

30

41

Base Wall Base Leg Diam. Thickness Thickness Thickness (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Table 9.2. Basalt Vessel Fragments from All Caves

Rounded triangular cross section

Thin triangular cross section

Central ‘leg’ or pillar, same vessel as L181, B1456

Plano-convex cross section

Concave sides of leg

Chamfered interior with striae

Finely worked, striae on exterior and interior

Central ‘leg’, with four ‘stems’ broken off one end

Round, flat wall fragment, reground

Round, flat wall fragment, edges reground

Wall fragment, unifacially drilled

Bowl base with incisions

Reworked vessel fragment

Wall fragment with two unifacial drill marks

With interior ‘stem’ protrusion

Open form, small vessel

Beveled rim

Rounded trapezoidal cross section

Modification

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

135

Artifact Type

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Cave No.

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Medial

Medial

Medial

Medial

Medial

Leg/base?

Leg/base

Leg/base

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Leg

Fragment Element

185

181

181

169

169

228

220

178

166

166

185

169

169

231

230

230

225

220

Locus

2071

1587

1586

1574

1574

2100

2093

1562

1433

1433

2071

1560

1456

2108

2107

2107

2096

2088

Basket

115

99

76

96

135

65

80

70

99

116

98

202

123

128

72

49

60

87

Length (mm)

27

30

30

30

63

84

72

31

42

32

32

32

30

Width (mm)

26

24

25

25

19

17

18

20

29

18

18

18

26

Thickness (mm)

Rim Diam. (mm)

280

200

200

300

300

200

180

17

15

26

23

24

25

25

26

17

24

22

Base Wall Base Diam. Thickness Thickness (mm) (mm) (mm)

Table 9.2 (cont.).

31

20

29

29

18

18

18

26

Leg Thickness (mm)

Almost square cross section, joins with L169, B1574

Joins with L181, B1586

Joins with L181, B1587

Joins with L185, B2071

Band relief, legs probably reground

Tripod, legs reground

Reground leg, interior ground, polished

Leg reground

Legs reground

Incised design; naviform leg cross section

Leg with interior stem, same vesselas L181/ 1586 & L169/1456

Triangular leg cross section; joins with L181, B1456

Reworked, incised

Incised design; beveled (interior?) edge

Incised design, beveled edge, joins with L225, B2096

Thin; incised design

Very well ground

Modification

136 YORKE M. ROWAN

Artifact Type

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand

Pedestal bowl stand?

Pedestal bowl stand?

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Cave No.

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Base?

Base

Base

Base

Medial?

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Ring base

Fragment Element

220

220

216

209

206

206

198

192

185

185

181

180

180

165

206

219

171

181

166

209

166

225

220

220

209

Locus

2085

2085

2077

2080

2066

2052

2040

2028

2071

2071

1596

1597

1585

1413

2057

2084

1508

1507

1403

2065

1432

2102

2093

2093

2092

Basket

102

60

46

36

80

68

130

61

70

25

50

120

55

50

75

64

105

68

57

103

85

82

81

Length (mm)

80

50

28

42

47

111

21

111

84

81

76

74

98

33

55

63

105

52

46

25

28

29

Width (mm)

15

17

17

10

14

14

17

18

14

17

18

21

16

22

18

20

30

27

25

Thickness (mm)

300

280

200

240

140

320

220

Rim Diam. (mm)

180

240

240

240

220

280

15

17

17

10

14

14

21

17

18

14

17

18

21

16

20

22

12

20

30

27

20

27

25

2

30

36

Base Wall Base Leg Diam. Thickness Thickness Thickness (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Table 9.2 (cont.).

Flared

Flared, chevron on rim interior

Flared

Very thin, chevron on rim interior

Open form, same as L192, B2028?

Flared, same vessel as L180, B1585?

Flared, same vessel as L206, B2052?

Pointed rim

Flared, incised chevron

Open form

Flared, joins with L230, B2107

Flared, same vessel as L198, B2040?

Straight wall, beveled rim

Bifacially slightly concave, thick

Thin, flat base

Joins with L181, B1507

Joins with L171, B1508, bifacial ground base fragment

Fenestrated stand medial fragment, reground?

Probably fenestrated stand

Small

Incised design on leg and base; leg—naviform cross section

Modification

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

137

Artifact Type

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel

Vessel?

Cave No.

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Wall?

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Wall

Rim

Rim

Rim

Rim

Fragment Element

206

227

220

219

206

206

206

184

180

173

230

220

220

220

Locus

2066

2105

2085

2084

2068

2066

2060

2001

1585

1505

2107

2093

2093

2088

Basket

42

61

81

46

57

45

39

73

82

48

71

34

34

117

Length (mm)

26

52

75

27

50

44

33

57

49

41

70

44

105

80

Width (mm)

24

11

12

17

18

19

13

29

16

18

18

13

17

19

Thickness (mm)

280

260

340

Rim Diam. (mm)

24

11

12

17

18

19

13

29

16

18

18

13

17

19

Base Wall Base Diam. Thickness Thickness (mm) (mm) (mm)

Table 9.2 (cont.). Leg Thickness (mm)

Unifacially very well polished—potter’s wheel fragment?

Very well ground, two ridges in relief

Joins with rim L180, B1585

Flared, joins with L180, B1597

Flared, interior chevron, exterior incisions

Flared

Flared, same vessel as L230, B2107 and L180, B1597?

Modification

138 YORKE M. ROWAN

CHAPTER 9: THE GROUNDSTONE ASSEMBLAGES

139

NOTE 1

The author would like to express his appreciation for the generous support of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (USIA) while a Fellow at the W.F. Albright

Institute of Archaeological Research (Jerusalem), which made this study possible.

REFERENCES Adams J. 1989. Methods for Improving Groundstone Artifacts Analysis: Experiments in Mano Wear Patterns. In D.S. Amick and R.P. Mauldin eds. Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford. Pp. 259–276. Alon D. and Levy T.E. 1989. The Archaeology of Cult and the Chalcolithic Sanctuary at Gilat. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2:163–221. Amiran R. 1978. Early Arad. The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City I: First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Amiran R. and Porat N. 1984. The Basalt Vessels of the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Tel Aviv 11:11–19. Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Ben-Tor A. 1975. Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor 1971 (Qedem 1). Jerusalem. Braun E. 1985. ‘En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel (BAR Int. S. 249). Oxford. Braun E. 1990. Basalt Bowls of the EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 16:87–96. Brink E.C.M. van den, Rowan Y.M. and Braun E. 1999. New Variations on Pedestaled Bowls. Mortuary Artifacts and Their Symbolic Associations in the Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant. IEJ 49:161–183. Commenge C. In press. Le mobilier en pierre des sites de Beersheva, Neguev septentrional, Israël (Cahiers du centre de recherches français de Jérusalem 9). Paris. Dorrell P. 1983. Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects. In K. Kenyon and T.A. Holland eds. Jericho V: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. Pp. 485–575. Dothan M. 1959. Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba). ‘Atiqot 2:1–42. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1997. Peqi‘in. ESI 16:22–24. Gilead I. 1995. Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Gopher A. and Tsuk T. 1996. The Chalcolithic Assemblage. In A. Gopher and T. Tsuk. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 12) Tel Aviv. Pp. 91–138. Gopher A., Tsuk T., Shalev S. and Gophna R. 1990. Earliest Gold Artifacts in the Levant. Current Anthropology 31:436– 443. Gophna R. and Lifshitz S. 1980. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot 14:1–8.

Hayden B. 1987. Manufacture of Metates Using Chipped Stone Tools. In B. Hayden ed. Lithic Studies among the Contemporary Highland Maya. Tucson. Kaplan J. 1963. Excavations at Benei Beraq, 1951. IEJ 13:300– 312. Lee J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Macdonald E. 1932. Beth Pelet II: Prehistoric Fara. London. Mallon R., Koeppel R. and Neuville R. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome. Perrot J. 1955. The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. IEJ 5:17–40, 73–84, 167–189. Perrot J. 1968. Préhistoire palestinienne. Supplément au Dictionaire de la Bible 8:285–446. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Perrot J., Zori N. and Reich Y. 1967. Neve Ur, un nouvel aspect du Ghassoulien. IEJ 17:201–232. Rowan Y. 2003. The Groundstone Assemblage. In A. Golani. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata (IAA Reports 18). Jerusalem. Rowan, Y. In press. Use-Wear Analysis of the Palettes from Abu Matar and Bir es-Safadi. In C. Commenge ed. Le mobilier en pierre des sites de Beersheva, Neguev septentrional, Israël (Cahiers du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 9). Paris. Rowan Y.M., Levy T.E., Goren Y. and Alon D. In press. Gilat’s Ground Stone Assemblage: Stone Fenestrated Stands, Bowls, Palettes and Related Artifacts. In T.E. Levy ed. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology). London. Schaub R.T. and Rast W.E. 1989. Bab edh-Dhra: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul Lapp (1965–1967). Winona Lake. Scheftelovitz N. 2003. Givat Haoranim. Qadmoniot 36:8–9 (Hebrew). Sussman V. and Ben-Arieh S. 1966. Ancient Burials at Giv‘atayim. ‘Atiqot (HS) 3:27–39. Wright K.I. 1992a. A Classification System for Groundstone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18:53–81. Wright K.I. 1992b. Groundstone Assemblage Variations and Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,000 to 5,500 B.P. Ph.D. diss. Yale University. New Haven.

140

YORKE M. ROWAN

CHAPTER 10: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

141

CHAPTER 10

THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES OFER MARDER

INTRODUCTION This report deals with the flint assemblages retrieved from Caves 1, 2 and 4 (Area A1), dating—with the exception of a single Epipaleolithic bladelet fragment—to the Chalcolithic period, Early Bronze Age I and Intermediate Bronze Age.1 In Cave 1 the flint artifacts were encountered together with a mixture of sherds, animal bones and human remains, while the contexts of Caves 2 and 4 were better preserved, with relatively well-defined stratigraphy (see above, Chap. 3). However, even in Caves 2 and 4, a mixture of diagnostic tools of different periods was discerned in several loci while sorting the flint artifacts. This mixture is the result of the use and reuse of the caves over several periods for both burial and domestic functions (including pits). Furthermore, flint artifacts are known for their high mobility within archaeological layers (Bar-Yosef 1993:19–22; Bankirer and Marder, in preparation). For these reasons, and bearing in mind the limited nature of the assemblages (less than 100 tools were recovered from all the caves; see Table 10.3), the possibility of establishing any functional and/or chronological differences on an intra- or inter-cave level, based on the flint artifacts, is very limited.

R AW MATERIAL The most common raw material is light brown to gray flint (see below), used for most of the ad hoc tools. Translucent chalcedony is relatively rare, used mainly for Chalcolithic sickle blades. Both types of raw material probably originated in the ‘En Zetim Formation (Senonian Age), which is found in the immediate vicinity of the site (see above, Chap. 2). Canaanean blades dating to the Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Ages were manufactured on high quality, dark brown flint of Eocene origin. This type of

flint does not occur in the vicinity. The closest source is located in the southern Shephelah, some 30 km to the southwest (Piccard and Golani 1992).2 As no cores of this material were located at the site, it can be assumed that the Canaanean blades were imported to the site.

CAVE 1 In Cave 1 no chips (artifacts less than 20 mm in size) were recovered (Table 10.1), probably due to the lack of sieving at the site. Fourteen cores of various types were found (Table 10.2; Fig. 10.1:1). The dominant tools are notches and denticulates and awls (Table 10.3). Other types of tools are rare. Only two tools on Canaanean blades were retrieved. One of them is a burin spall that was struck from a Canaanean sickle blade; it was later modified into a borer (Fig. 10.1:2, see below). The second is a typical retouched blade. An item worth mentioning is a massive borer, possibly of Chalcolithic date (Fig. 10.1:3). An intrusive element is a fragment of a backed bladelet, probably of Epipaleolithic date (Fig. 10.1:4).

CAVE 2 Only six cores were uncovered in Cave 2, three of which were broken (Table 10.2). Seven core-trimming elements were found, indicating that flint knapping took place on-site. Most of them were irregular in shape, and only one was a ridge blade. As in Cave 1, notches and denticulates dominate the assemblage (Table 10.3). However, EB I diagnostic tools, mainly Canaanean sickle blades and retouched Canaanean blades, are an important element in the assemblage. Other tools such as burins, scrapers, multiple tools and awls were also found (Fig.10.2:1–3). The small group of Canaanean sickle blades includes one large (152 × 29 × 9 mm), bi-truncated

142

OFER MARDER

Table 10.1. Waste Frequencies Cave 1 Type

Cave 2

Cave 4

N

%

N

%

N

%

Primary elements

23

21.5

13

9.2

23

19.7

Flakes

73

68.2

104

73.7

82

70.1

Blades

1

0.9

4

2.8

7

5.9

Bladelets

9

8.4

13

9.2

2

1.7

CTE

1

0.9

7

5.0

3

2.6

107

99.9

141

99.9

117

100.0

19

100.0

17

42.5

11

100.0

-

-

23

57.5

-

-

19

100.0

40

100.0

11

100.0

Total debitage Chunks Chips Total debris Debitage

107

63.3

141

65.0

117

63.2

Debris

19

11.2

40

18.4

11

5.9

Cores

14

8.3

6

2.8

21

11.4

Tools

29

17.1

30

13.8

36

19.5

Total

169

99.9

217

100.0

185

100.0

Fig. 10.1 No.

Type

Locus

Basket

1

Amorphous core

171

1508

2

Borer on a burin spall

100

1000

3

Massive borer

122

1090

4

Backed bladelet

122

1075

1

4

2

0

3

Fig. 10.1. Flint artifacts from Cave 1.

1

143

CHAPTER 10: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

EB I remains. The other three blades have sheen on one or both working edges, which are either plain or finely denticulated (Fig. 10.2:4). On one of these blades the edge opposite the working edge was fashioned by abrupt retouch (Fig. 10.2:5). One of the three retouched blades was fashioned by fine retouch, two by steep retouch on one or both edges. One of the latter (a retouched Canaanean blade fragment) shows removal on the ventral and dorsal sides, forming a splinter piece (Fig. 10.2:6). This phenomenon is well known at a nearby Chalcolithic– EB I site excavated by Y. Nadelman.4 Only two diagnostic Chalcolithic tools were recovered. Both are narrow sickle blades, rectangular in shape with a trapezoidal cross section (Fig. 10.2:7, 8). In addition, one tabular scraper, proximally and laterally broken, was found. This item could have originated in the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age stratum.

specimen exhibiting gloss on both edges, probably used as a reaping knife (Fig. 10.3). This tool could have originated in the Intermediate Bronze Age, as it is clearly wider than the other Canaanean blades (see Rosen 1997:60).3 It was found on a boulder sealing the

Table 10.2. Core Frequencies Cave 1

Cave 2

Cave 4

One striking platform—flakes

4

2

4

One striking platform—blades

-

-

2

Two striking platforms—flakes

2

1

1

Two striking platforms—blades

2

-

2

Broken

3

3

4

Amorphous irregular

3

-

5

Discoidal

-

-

3

14

6

21

Type

Total

Table 10.3. Tool Frequencies Cave 1

Cave 2

Cave 4

Type

N

%

N

%

N

%

Chalcolithic sickles

1

3.4

2

6.7

1

2.8 11.1

Canaanean sickles

-

-

4

13.3

4

Sickles—others

-

-

-

-

3

8.3

Canaanean retouched blades

1

3.4

2

6.7

5

13.9

Tools on Canaanean blades—others

1

3.4

1

3.3

6

16.7

Tabular scrapers

-

-

1

3.3

-

-

Varia

1

3.4

-

-

-

-

Notches and denticulates

8

27.6

8

26.7

8

22.2

Endscrapers

1

3.4

3

10

1

2.8

Sidescrapers

1

3.4

-

-

-

-

Borers

2

6.9

-

-

-

-

Burins

1

3.4

2

6.7

2

5.5

Truncations

-

-

1

3.3

-

Awls

7

24.1

3

10

4

11.1

Retouched flakes

2

6.9

2

5.5

Retouched blades and bladelets

2

6.9

-

-

Ad Hoc Tools

Multiple tools Total

1

3.3

1

3.4

2

6.7

-

-

29

100.0

30

100.0

36

99.9

144

OFER MARDER

1

2

3

0

4

1

6

5

Fig. 10.2

7

8

No.

Type

Locus

Basket

1

Multiple tool

704

7010

2

Burin

128

1312

3

Multiple tool

128

1242

4

Canaanean sickle blade

129

1393

5

Canaanean sickle blade

128

1293

6

Splinter piece

128

1274

7

Chalcolithic sickle blade

129

1273

8

Chalcolithic sickle blade

128

1240

Fig. 10.2. Flints artifacts from Cave 2.

CHAPTER 10: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

145

notches are also common. Other tools are rare. Four Canaanean sickle blades, two of which are thick, rectangular and backed, were found. The working edge was made by fine or steep retouch. The other two are plain blades, exhibiting sheen on one or both edges (Fig. 10.4:1). Retouched Canaanean blades were fashioned by regular, steep or fine denticulation. One of them is elongated, broken proximally and truncated on the distal end (Fig.10.4:2). Six tools made on Canaanean blades form a special group. Two of these were reused as burins (Fig. 10.4:3, 4), two additional items as borers. One of the borers (Fig. 10.4:5) was meticulously fashioned by abrupt retouch and truncated on the proximal end, while the second (Fig. 10.4:6) has alternate retouch. On its left side the retouch is semi-steep towards the ventral surface, while the right side was fashioned by bifacial retouch. Both types of retouch created double notches which facilitated the hafting of the tool. Another retouched Canaanean blade was snapped by an apparent burin blow (Fig. 10.4:7), which might suggest hafting. The remaining item exhibits a notch on its right edge. Only one diagnostic Chalcolithic sickle blade was discovered, made of high quality, dark brown material with cortex preserved on the dorsal side (Fig. 10.4:8).

DISCUSSION

Fig. 10.3. Canaanean sickle blade from Cave 2 (L128, B123).

CAVE 4 Twenty-one cores were found in Cave 4 (see Table 10.2), nine of which were used for blade and bladelet production. The dominant tool group (c. 42%) was made on Canaanean blades (see Table 10.3). Denticulates and

Ad hoc tools comprise 60–80% of the three cave assemblages. The fact that cores, core-trimming elements and debitage were recovered in all the caves is witness to at least some on-site production. Among the diagnostic tools, the Canaanean material dominates, the majority probably dating to EB I. Within the EB I assemblage, Canaanean blades and Canaanean sickle blades are the most prominent groups. It is worth noting that in Cave 4 in particular, many of the Canaanean blades were reused, resharpened or rehafted, as indicated by the presence of multiple tools such as burins on Canaanean retouched blades and burin spalls. This phenomenon can best be explained by the scarcity of the high-quality Eocene raw material used for the production of Canaanean blades. A similar phenomenon is reported from several EB I sites in the area of Ashqelon Afridar (Zbenovich 2004a; 2004b). Somewhat puzzling is the presence of four Canaanean blades found around a stone-built fireplace on the northeastern side of Cave 4 (L175, Basket 1552; see Plans 3.8, 3.9). Ceramics as well as two radiocarbon

146

OFER MARDER

3 1

2

0

1

4

5

Fig. 10.4. Flint artifacts from Cave 4. No.

Type

Locus

Basket

1

Canaanean sickle blade

165

1391

2

Retouched Canaanean blade

209

2082

3

Burin on Canaanean blade

214

2075

4

Burin on Canaanean blade

175

1552

5

Borer on Canaanean blade

218

2079

6

Borer on Canaanean blade

185

2071

7

Retouched Canaanean blade

185

2071

8

Chalcolithic sickle blade

220

2085

147

CHAPTER 10: THE FLINT ASSEMBLAGES

6

7

8

0

1

Fig. 10.4 (cont.)

samples (c. 4,000 BCE) would seem to indicate a Chalcolithic date (see Chap. 15). Canaanean blades are the hallmark of the Early Bronze Age in the Levant (Rosen 1997). However, some problematic occurrences of these blades within Chalcolithic contexts (Rowan and Levy 1994; Khalaily and Hermon 1998) or from sites with 14C dates in the first half of the fourth millennium BCE (Schick 1998:59–62,126–130) have appeared in recent years that cannot be ignored. In the case of Shoham, the author of this chapter believes that the blades were deposited here after the Chalcolithic use of the cave, or that this anomaly is a result of postdepositional processes within the cave; the excavators, however, do not share this view.

The only diagnostic Chalcolithic tools are four sickle blades, which are related to domestic activities. However, during the Chalcolithic period all the caves were used for burial purposes and only in Cave 4 were domestic activities also noticed. On the other hand, Chalcolithic flint artifacts related to burial tool kits were not found. The absence of perforated flint disks, tabular scrapers and adzes, which are associated with Chalcolithic burial contexts at several sites (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997; Hermon and Marder, forthcoming), might indicate a regional variability. This is further supported by the Chalcolithic (burial) site at Qula (West), north of Shoham, where such flint tools are totally absent (Milevski 1999; 2001).

NOTES 1

The author of this chapter wishes to thank Ianir Milevski for his comments on an early draft of this paper, and Leonid Zeiger for the drawings of the flint artifacts. 2 Eocene cores for blade production and blocks of this material were found, respectively, at Gat Guvrin (Rosen 1997:107–108) and Tel Yarmut (G. Gilboa, pers. comm.).

3

Similar wide Canaanean blades were found, inter alia, at H. Qishron (Bankirer 2002), in the Tel Esur (‘Ein Asawir) burials (Khalaily, forthcoming) and at Manahat (Rosen 1998: Fig. 6:7, 8). 4 We owe this information to Flavia Sonntag. The site is located northwest of the present caves (Nadelman 1995).

148

OFER MARDER

REFERENCES Bankirer R.Y. 2002. The Flint from the Intermediate Bronze Age Site of Horbat Qishron. In Z. Gal ed. Eretz Zafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Haifa. Pp. 47*–51*. Bankirer R. and Marder O. In preparartion. The Flint Assemblage of Tel Megadim. In S. Wolff. Excavations at Tel Megadim (Tel Sahar) (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef O. 1993. Site Formation Processes from a Levantine Viewpoint. In P.D. Goldberg, D.T. Nash and M. Petraglia eds. Formation Processes in Archaeological Context (Monographs in World Archaeology 17). Madison. Pp. 13–32. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1997. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave in Peqi‘in, Upper Galilee. IEJ 47:145–154. Hermon S. and Marder O. Forthcoming. Flint Artifacts from the Eilat Burial Site. In U. Avner. Eilat Burial Site (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Khalaily H. Forthcoming. The Flint Implements. In E. Yannai. Excavations at the Tel Esur (Tell Asawir) Cemeteries (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Khalaily H. and Hermon S. 1998. New Excavations at Nahal Komem (Gat Guvrin). Abstracts of the Israel Society of Prehistory Annual Meeting. December 1998. Be’er Sheva‘.

Milevski I. 1999. Qula (West). HA–ESI 110:49*–51*. Milevski I. 2001. Qula, Area K. HA–ESI 113:62*–63*. Nadelman Y. 1995. Shoham. ESI 14:80–81. Piccard L.Y and Golani U. 1992. Geological Map of Israel, 1:250,000—Northern Sheet. Geological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem. Rosen S.A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek. Rosen S.A. 1998. The Chipped Stone Assemblage. In G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant eds. Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds. Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989 (IAA Reports 3). Jerusalem. Pp. 78–88. Rowan Y.M. and Levy T.E. 1994. Proto-Canaanean Blades of the Chalcolithic Period. Levant 26:167–174. Schick T. 1998. The Cave of the Warrior. A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert (IAA Reports 5). Jerusalem. Zbenovich V.G. 2004a. The Flint Assemblage from Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E. ‘Atiqot 45:63–84. Zbenovich V.G. 2004b. The Flint Assemblages from Ashqelon, Afridar—Areas G and J. ‘Atiqot 45:263–278.

CHAPTER 11: THE HUMAN REMAINS

149

CHAPTER 11

THE HUMAN REMAINS VERED ESHED

Human bones from an Intermediate Bronze Age burial and from Chalcolithic layers were recovered from Caves 1, 2 and 4 at the site.1 The poor preservation of the bones prevented a full anthropological report. Age and sex determinations were not always possible and sometimes were based on a small number of criteria only, thus lessening the accuracy of these estimates (Table 11.1). All bones were sent to the Ministry of Religious Affairs for reburial. Following is a description of the finds according to cave and loci: Table 11.1. Age/Sex Distribution at Shoham (North) Age of Individual

20–30 Years

30–40 Years

Undetermined Age (Adults)

1

1

01

Undetermined sex

2

3

11

Total

3

4

12

Male Female

CAVE 1

Locus 155, Basket 1267 (Chalcolithic).3 Postcranial bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex.

CAVE 2 Locus 127, Basket 1105. Postcranial bone fragments. Undetermined age and sex. Locus 129, Basket 1408 (Chalcolithic). Teeth of an adult. Age: 30–40 years, based on the state of dental attrition (Hillson 1986). Undetermined sex. Locus 129, Basket 1448 (Chalcolithic). Teeth of an adult. Age: 20–30 years, based on the state of dental attrition (Hillson 1986). Undetermined sex. Locus 129, Basket 1440 (Chalcolithic). Bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex. Locus 129, Basket 1441 (Chalcolithic). Bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex.

Locus 122, Basket 1136 (Chalcolithic). Postcranial bone fragments of an adult of undetermined age and sex.2

Locus 129, Basket 1472 (Chalcolithic). Bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex.

Locus 139, Basket 1174 (Chalcolithic). Postcranial bone fragments and teeth representing two adults. One of the individuals is a male (the vertical diameter of the femur head is 48 mm; see Bass 1987). The other individual may also be a male. Respective ages: 30–35 years and 20–30 years, based on the state of dental attrition (Hillson 1986).

Locus 129, Basket 1492 (Chalcolithic). Bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex.

Locus 141, Basket 1164 (Chalcolithic). Postcranial bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex. Locus 152, Basket 1601 (Intermediate Bronze). Teeth (lower premolar) and postcranial bone fragments of an adult. Age: 30–50 years, based on the state of dental attrition (Hillson 1986). Undetermined sex.

Locus 129, Basket 1552 (Chalcolithic). Bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex. Locus 129, Basket 1570 (Chalcolithic). Tooth (upper second molar) of an adult. Age: 30–40: years, based on the state of dental attrition (Hillson 1986). Undetermined sex.

CAVE 4 Locus 151, Basket 1317 (Chalcolithic). Mandible and teeth of an adult. Age: 20–30 years, based on the state of dental attrition. Undetermined sex.

150

VERED ESHED

Locus 169, Basket 1559 (Chalcolithic). Postcranial bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex. Locus 209, Basket 2080 (Chalcolithic). Skull fragments of an adult. Probably a male (based on the morphology of the cranial bones). Undetermined age.

SUMMARY The remains of 19 individuals were excavated and examined.4 All the human remains recovered belong to the Chalcolithic period, except for one (Cave 1, L152, B1601), which belongs to the Intermediate Bronze Age.

Locus 219, Basket 2084 (Chalcolithic). Postcranial bone fragments of an adult. Undetermined age and sex.

NOTES 1

This article was translated from Hebrew by Maya Dagon. These are the only skeletal remains from this burial (L122) that were examined. Locus 122 contained the remains of at least nine individuals, based on the number of skulls

2

recovered. Due to circumstances, these remains were sent for reburial prior to examination. 3 This locus is an extension of the burial in L122. 4 See, however, above n. 2.

REFERENCES Bass W.M. 1987. Human Osteology. A Laboratory and Field Manual. (3rd ed.). Columbia.

Hillson S. 1986. Teeth. Cambridge.

CHAPTER 11: THE HUMAN REMAINS

151

CHAPTER 12

THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS NILI LIPHSCHITZ

INTRODUCTION Shoham is located in the Lod Valley, in the central coastal plain, in a typical Mediterranean climate. The mean annual precipitation of the area is above 500 mm (Meteorological Notes 1967). The mean temperature of the region varies from 7 to17° C in January and 22 to 31° C in August. The soils of the region are brown grumic and accumulative red-brown grumic soils. The area has been under continuous cultivation since ancient times and the primary vegetation is almost extinct. The present-day vegetation is mainly segetal. The residue of the arboreal vegetation in the area of Shoham is composed of the garigue and batha formation with a few trees of Ceratonia siliqua (carob), Ziziphus spina christi (jujube, Christ thorn) and Ficus carica (fig). Comprehensive dendroarchaeological research in Israel has shown that the primary climax vegetation which dominated the Mediterranean territory during antiquity was the Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak)– Pistacia palaestina (terebinth) association (Liphschitz and Biger 1990). Olea europaea (olive) constituted one of its components. The presence of olives within this association highly increased following its cultivation by man (Liphschitz et al. 1991).

MATERIALS AND METHODS In excavations carried out in Caves 2 and 4 at Shoham (North), charred pieces of wood and carbonized seeds were collected from layers dating to the Chalcolithic and the late Early Bronze Age I. Most of the samples deriving from Cave 2 were obtained by sieving the soil. Samples of 0.5–1 cu cm were taken from each charred piece of wood. The samples were aspirated in absolute ethyl alcohol, dipped in celloidin–clove oil solution for 24 hours and rinsed in absolute ethyl alcohol. Finally, the samples were transferred to

50–55°C paraffin for 72 hours. Blocks were prepared and 10–12 millimicron-thick sections were made with a microtome. Cross, as well as longitudinal, tangential and radial sections were prepared. The identification of the wood up to the species level was based on the three-dimensional structure of the wood, as examined microscopically from these sections. The sections were compared with reference sections prepared from systematically identified living trees and with anatomical atlases available for different geographical regions. Seeds were identified morphologically by comparison with recent seeds. Two wood samples were dated by 14C in the Weizmann Institute (Table 12.1; see below, Chap. 15).

R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION The wood remains collected in the excavations at Shoham (N) comprise six species of trees and shrubs (Tables 12.1, 12.2): Olea europaea, Quercus calliprinos, Pistacia palaestina, Rhamnus palaestinus (buckthorn), Crataegus aronia (hawthorn) and Tamarix aphylla (tamarisk). Most of the samples were of Olea europaea. In the Chalcolithic layers of Cave 4, 28 of 30 samples were Olea europaea, and in Cave 2, 8 of 10 samples from the Chalcolithic layers were of this species. Similarly, 12 of 14 samples dating to the late EB I (Cave 2) were of Olea europaea. Altogether, 48 of 54 samples, i.e., 88.9%, were of olive. Only single specimens were found from the other species. The very high percentage of olive within the wood assemblage points to the existence of olives in the immediate vicinity of the caves. Olive cultivation is evident since the Early Bronze Age (Liphschitz et al. 1991). The high percentages of olive wood in the Chalcolithic layers suggest that propagation of wild olives by man could have already begun during the Chalcolithic period. The wood remains of Quercus calliprinos and Pistacia palaestina represent the native climax

152

NILI LIPHSCHITZ VERED ESHED

Table 12.1. Location of Wood Remains in Cave 4 at Shoham (N): Chalcolithic Locus

Square

Species

168

2

Olea europaea

171

3

Olea europaea

172

3

Olea europaea

188

Basket

2023

1b

2019

1b, pit

Olea europaea

192

2024

3b

Olea europaea

2032

4

RT-2168 = 3990–3810 BCE

Olea europaea

195

2037

4

Olea europaea

199

2072

2

Olea europaea

Locus

Basket

Species

Remarks

129

1342

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1354

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1385

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1393

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1397

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1427

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1442

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1552

Olea europaea

Sieving

129

1380

Tamarix aphylla

129

1438

Crataegus aronia

Chalcolithic

Olea europaea

191 195

Remarks

Table 12.2. Location of Wood Remains in Cave 2 at Shoham (N): Chalcolithic and Late EB I

204

2047a

4

Olea europaea

204

2047b

4

Olea europaea

Late EB I

206

2052a

4

Olea europaea

128

1226

Olea europaea

Sieving

206

2052b

4

Olea europaea

128

1241

Olea europaea

Sieving

206

2053

4

Olea europaea

128

1273

Olea europaea

206

2066

4

Olea europaea

128

1411

Olea europaea

206

2068

4

Olea europaea

128

1428

Olea europaea

207

2055

3b

Olea europaea

128

1289

Olea europaea

209

2070

3b

Olea europaea

128

1300

Olea europaea

214

2075

4, pit

Olea europaea

128

1302

Olea europaea

Sieving

215

2076

4, pit

Olea europaea

128

1313

Olea europaea

Sieving

220

2085

4

Olea europaea

128

1324

Olea europaea

220

2093

4

Olea europaea

128

1326

Olea europaea

224

2095

4

Olea europaea

128

2046

Olea europaea

226

2097

4, pit

Olea europaea

128

1275

Pistacia palaestina

227

2099a

4

Olea europaea

128

1310

Rhamnus palaestinus

227

2099b

4

Olea europaea

228

2100

4, pit

Olea europaea

234

2111

4, pit

Olea europaea

206

2060

4

Pistacia palaestina

167

1404

3

Quercus calliprinos

RT-2167 = 4040–3815 BCE

arboreal vegetation that dominated the Mediterranean region at that time (Liphschitz and Biger 1990). The remains of the two shrubs Rhamnus palaestinus and Crataegus aronia are not surprising since both species are components of the dominant association of Quercus calliprinos–Pistacia palaestina. The carbonized seeds gathered in the caves are stones of Olea europaea (Table 12.3).

Sieving

Sieving Sieving

In recent excavations carried out in other caves at Shoham (South), c. 1.5 km south of the two caves under discussion, similar results were found. In these caves the wood remains originated in layers dated to the Chalcolithic period, as well as to the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages. The dendroarchaeological analyses there show similar results: high percentages of Olea europaea wood, along with Quercus calliprinos and Pistacia palaestina from the Chalcolithic period to the Late Bronze Age (Liphschitz 1994–1996). Similarly, all seeds collected were olive stones. Taking into account all the data from the caves at Shoham North and South, in layers dated to the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, the following picture emerges: Olea europaea comprised 57 of the

153

CHAPTER 12: THE11: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS CHAPTER THE HUMAN REMAINS

73 samples of Chalcolithic wood remains (78%) and 77 of the 99 samples of Early Bronze Age wood remains (77.8%). Similar findings were revealed at two other sites in the central coastal plain, although only a few wood remains were identified there. At the Early Bronze Age site of Tel Dalit, situated quite close to Shoham, 8 of 12 wood samples were of Olea europaea and 4 were of Quercus calliprinos (Liphschitz 1996). At Tel Aphek analysis of the wood remains originating in the Early Bronze Age layers revealed that 8 of 10 samples were of Olea europaea and the remaining 2 samples were of Quercus calliprinos (Liphschitz 2000).

Table 12.3. Location of Olea europaea Stones in the Caves at Shoham (N): Chalcolithic and Late EB I Locus

Basket

Context

206

2066

Sq 4

218

2079

Sq 4

128

1241

Late EB I

128

1302

Late EB I

128

1313

Late EB I

129

1442

Chalcolithic

Cave 4: Chalcolithic

Cave 2: Chalcolithic and EB I, sieved

REFERENCES Liphschitz N. 1994–1996. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: Shoham (Mimeographed Report, Nos. 262, 265, 276, 280. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz N. 1996. Analysis of Botanical Remains. In R. Gophna. Excavations at Tel Dalit. An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv. Pp. 186–192. Liphschitz N. 2000. Archaeobotanical Remains. In M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin eds. Aphek–Antipatris I. Tel Aviv. Pp. 315–320.

Liphschitz N. and Biger G. 1990. Dominance of Quercus calliprinos (Kermes Oak)–Pistacia palaestina (Terebinth) Association in the Mediterranean Territory of Eretz Israel During Antiquity. Journal of Vegetation Science 1:67–70. Liphschitz N., Hartman M., Gophna R. and Biger G. 1991. Beginning of Olive (Olea europaea) Cultivation in the Old World. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:441–453. Meteorological Notes 1967. No. 21. Climatological Standard Normals of Rainfall, 1931–1960 (Israel Meteorological Service). Bet Dagan.

154

VERED ESHED

CHAPTER 11: THE HUMAN REMAINS

155

CHAPTER 13

THE MOLLUSC REMAINS HENK K. MIENIS

MATERIAL AND METHODS Archaeozoological material collected from Shoham (North) Caves 2 and 4 included 11 mollusc samples. Most of the shells were either heavily damaged or were represented by fragments only. However, the state of preservation of the material did not cause any particular problems during the identification. In a few cases the fragments were compared with recent samples present in the National Mollusc Collection of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

R ESULTS The 11 mollusc samples comprised 18 shells belonging to either gastropods or bivalves (Table 13.1). From the taxonomic point of view six different species

could be recognized: one landsnail (Levantina), two freshwater mussels (Unio and Chambardia) and three marine molluscs (Hexaplex—a snail; Glycymeris and Cerastoderma—bivalves; Table 13.2). The shells originated from four zoogeographic areas (Table 13.3).

DISCUSSION Molluscs found at archaeological sites may provide paleoenvironmental information, most often concerning the cultural and culinary habits of the former inhabitants. The more material that is available for study, the more information we can retrieve from the faunal remains. At Shoham (N) only 18 archaeomalacological items were recovered, yet they provide us with valuable data.

Table 13.1. Archaeomalacological Material Cave

Locus

Basket

Identification

Remarks

2

128

1238

Chambardia rubens arcuata

1 fragment

2

129

1535

Chambardia rubens arcuata

1 large fragment

4

185

2071

Chambardia rubens arcuata

1 fragment

4

195

2032

Chambardia rubens arcuata

1 fragment

4

206

2052

Glycymeris insubrica Unio mancus eucirrus

1 valve, umbo perforated 1 fragment

4

206

2057

Chambardia rubens arcuata

1 umbonal fragment

4

206

2066

Chambardia rubens arcuata Unio mancus eucirrus

1 fragment 1 fragment

4

217

2078

Glycymeris insubrica Unio mancus eucirrus

1 valve with small, natural hole 1 fragment

4

219

2084

Levantina spiriplana werneri Glycymeris insubrica

1 broken shell 1 fragment

4

220

2085

Cerastoderma glaucum

1 valve with large, man-made perforation in umbo 1 large umbonal fragment 1 tiny fragment

Chambardia rubens arcuata 4

220

2088

Hexaplex trunculus Glycymeris insubrica

1 shell consisting of damaged body and penultimate whorls 1 large fragment

156

HENK K.ESHED MIENIS VERED

Table 13.2. Systematics of the Mollusc Species Phylum Mollusca

No. of Items

Class Gastropoda Family Muricidae Hexaplex trunculus (Linnaeus 1758)

1

Family Helicidae Levantina spiriplana werneri (Kobelt 1889)

1

Class Bivalvia Family Glycymerididae Glycymeris insubrica (Brocchi 1814)

4

Family Mutelidae Chambardia rubens arcuata (Cailliaud 1823)

8

Family Unionidae Unio mancus eucirrus (Bourguignat 1857)

3

Family Cardiidae Cerastoderma glaucum (Poiret 1789)

1

The only shell of local origin, i.e., from the surroundings of the site, is Levantina spiriplana werneri. The distribution of this particular subspecies is confined to the hills east of Lod (Pfeiffer 1949). It is a relatively large landsnail known to be edible (Bar 1977; Mienis 1985). However, if the Levantina spiriplana werneri had been used as food at Shoham, then large numbers of empty shells should abound at the site. Small mammals like Crocidura, Acomys, Mus and Rattus also feed on landsnails and often carry their victims into their burrows, where the snails are devoured and the shells discarded. In this way older layers are often contaminated with material of more recent origin. Six shells are marine species of Mediterranean origin: Hexaplex trunculus (1), Glycymeris insubrica (4) and Cerastoderma glaucum (1). These shells were either collected by the Chalcolithic people during occasional visits to the Mediterranean seashore or, more likely, were obtained by means of trade. The three valves with

a hole in the umbo (2 Glycymeris and 1 Cerastoderma), may have been used as pendants. The freshwater mussels, Unio mancus eucirrus and Chambardia rubens arcuata, originated from two different areas: the former from one of the coastal rivers (most likely the Yarqon), the latter from the Nile. Chambardia reached the site without doubt by means of trade. In both species the interior of the fresh valves has a beautiful pearly layer comparable to the true ‘motherof-pearl’ shells Pinctada margaritifera from the Red Sea, although the pearly layer in the freshwater mussels is much softer than that of Pinctada and therefore of inferior quality. However, Unio and Chambardia were probably more easily available than shells of Pinctada. While there is no clue why the inhabitants were interested in these shells, their presence at Shoham is not a unique case. Chambardia has been recovered from a number of Chalcolithic sites in the Levant: Tell Abu Matar (Perrot 1955; 1957), Horbat Beter (Dothan 1959), Grar (BarYosef 1995), Tel Arad (Mienis, unpublished), Zomet Shoqet (Mienis, unpublished), Ben Shemen (Mienis 1980) and Tuleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973).

CONCLUSIONS In spite of the fact that relatively few archaeomalacological items were recovered from the excavations of Shoham (N), they provide us with some useful information. A zoogeographic analysis of the material shows us that the shells originated from four different areas (Table 13.3): the surroundings of the site (Levantina), the coastal rivers of the Levant (Unio), the Mediterranean Sea (Hexaplex, Glycymeris and Cerastoderma) and the Nile River in Africa (Chambardia). This implies that trade was already well developed during the Chalcolithic period. Some of the shells were probably used as pendants (Glycymeris and Cerastoderma). The interest in and use of Unio and Chambardia remain a mystery.

Table 13.3. Zoogeographic Data for the Molluscs Habitat

Species

Geographic Origin

Terrestrial

Levantina spiriplana werneri

Israel: endemic to the environs of Ben Shemen

Fluviatile

Unio mancus eucirrus Chambardia rubens arcuata

Levant: coastal rivers like the Yarqon, Alexander, etc. Africa: the Nile and rivers more to the south

Marine

Hexaplex trunculus Glycymeris insubrica Cerastoderma glaucum

Mediterranean Sea Mediterranean Sea Mediterranean Sea

CHAPTER REMAINS CHAPTER13: 11:THE THEMOLLUSC HUMAN REMAINS

157

REFERENCES Bar Z. 1977. Human Consumption of Land Snails in Israel. Basteria 41:53–58. Bar-Yosef (Mayer) D.E. 1995. The Molluscs from Grar. In I. Gilead. Grar, a Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Pp. 453–462. Dothan M. 1959. Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba). ‘Atiqot 2:1–42. Lee J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Mienis H.K. 1980. Molluscs from a Chalcolithic Site near Ben Shemen. Levantina 28:333.

Mienis H.K. 1985. Enkele verdere gegevens betreffende de consumptie van landslakken in Israel. Correspondentieblad van de Nederlandse Malacologische Vereniging 225:63–65. Perrot J. 1955. Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. IEJ 5:17–40, 73–84, 167–189. Perrot J. 1957. Les fouilles d’Abou Matar près de Beersheba. Syria 34:1–38. Pfeiffer K.L. 1949. Levantina spiriplana (Olivier). Archiv für Molluskenkunde 77:1–51.

158

VERED ESHED

nlks

.

CHAPTER 11: THE HUMAN REMAINS

159

CHAPTER 14

THE MAGNETIC SURVEY SONIA ITKIS

INTRODUCTION Geophysical prospecting is recognized as a reliable tool for locating and mapping buried archaeological sites. The increased sensitivity of magnetometers in recent years permits a wide application of the magnetic method to the study of archaeological sites (Wynn 1986; Clark 1990:419; Heimmer and De Vore 1995; Itkis and Epplebaum 1999; Hansen 2001). In recent decades many scientists have studied the different properties of soil at archaeological sites, including magnetic properties (Tite and Mullins 1971; Dalan and Banerjee 1996; Ellwood et al. 1996; Itkis et al. 1999). They have found that considerable increases in magnetic susceptibility values in archaeological deposits may serve as an indicator of human habitation at the site. Magnetic anomalies produced by caves and voids with soil fills would be displayed in magnetic maps. Magnetic prospecting is a fast, cost-effective and non-invasive method that can reveal major targets prior to excavation. The accuracy, high resolution and reliability of the method provide a useful tool for evaluation of sites.

FIELDWORK The magnetic survey carried out on July 5th, 1994, was devoted to searching for the presence of subterranean voids, presumably caves, in the Ben Shemen area. A previous magnetic survey carried out in this region indicated that the magnetic contrast between the rocks and the soil fills is weak but sufficient for discerning magnetic anomalies caused by voids (Hesse 1980). This previous report noted that of the four anomalies discovered within the surveyed area and subsequently examined by probe excavations, one was later identified as a burial cave while the other three were natural voids. In order to detect weak anomalies it was necessary to guarantee the highest accuracy of mapping. Certain

conditions are necessary to achieve this: maintaining a constant distance between the sensor and the surface being measured, orienting the sensor in a north–south direction and keeping a distance between the sensor and operator of no less than 1.2–1.5 m. Any closer, and the operator who carries a battery set could cause distinguishable ‘magnetic noise’ that would affect the readings of the magnetometer and possibly decrease the accuracy of the survey. Weak magnetic anomalies produced by near-surface targets commonly do not exceed a few nanoTesla (nT)1 units and may be obscured by diurnal variations of the earth’s magnetic field. Therefore simultaneous registration of diurnal variations was performed to maintain the high accuracy of the survey. The area of the magnetic study is located c. 100 m to the north of Caves 3 and 4, on the slope of the hill. It covers 26 × 20 m, or 520 sq m. The northern portion of the area is comprised of rocky terrain with stone outcrops, in contrast to the flatter southern portion. The size of the grid and the height of the sensor were chosen according to the estimated dimensions of the remains, as well as on the basis of previous experience in areas with weak magnetic contrast between objects and surrounding soil. The field measurements were carried out along a regular 1 × 1 m grid. The sensor was held at a constant level of 0.10 m, extremely close to the surface, in order to amplify hypothetical weak signals. The conventional fieldwork technique usually includes measurements with two magnetometers, one to measure the magnetic field at the grid points and the second to record diurnal magnetic variations. For the magnetic survey at Shoham a proton magnetometer MMP-203 was used for grid measurements and a quanta magnetometer M-60 was utilized as a base station for registration of diurnal variations, placed some 50 m from the site to avoid static and moving magnetic ‘noise’. Diurnal variations were registered every 30 seconds. These data were synchronized with the field magnetic observations. The correction of

160

SONIAESHED ITKIS VERED

field data was realized by removal of time magnetic variation values from the field magnetic measurements. The accuracy of the survey, estimated with 5% control measurements, is ± 0.9 nT. In the next stage the calculated data were entered into the computer with their own X and Y coordinates. This determines the location of each point within the surveyed area and facilitates construction of the magnetic field map (Fig. 14.1). The 0-level (datum line) and set of contour intervals of magnetic intensity were chosen to more clearly represent magnetic anomalies on the map.

R ESULTS Two types of magnetic anomalies, differing in both configurations and magnetic intensity values, were revealed within the area. 1. Positive circular and elliptical anomalies, 2–5 m in length and 1.5–2 m in width. They are characterized by significant values of magnetic intensity of 10–20 nT. This type may be considered a promising anomaly probably caused by a large void filled with soil. These anomalies represent either singular structures or several connected to one another by narrow elongated ‘by-pass’ anomalies. A large system in the northern part of the area consists of a number of single units, from east to west (the numbers in parentheses correspond to the X and Y coordinates of the maximum point of the anomaly): Sh7 (8; 20), Sh8 (6; 20), Sh9 (8; 14) and Sh10 (6;14) connected to the western anomalies Sh12 (10; 1) and Sh13 (6; 2) by the narrow elongated anomaly Sh11, which measures c. 7 m long and 1.2–1.5 m wide. Sh11 may indicate a tunnel. Based on the configuration thus obtained, it can be supposed that anomalies Sh12 and Sh13 are only partially documented and probably continue westward. The eastern portion of the system branches into two parts: the northern lentoid-shaped anomaly Sh10, and the smaller southern anomaly Sh9. Further to the east the situation repeats itself with the next pair of anomalies, Sh8 and Sh7, connected to Sh9 and Sh10 by narrow passages of 3 to 3.5 m. The anomalies Sh7 and Sh8 probably continue eastward, out of the survey limits. In the southern part of the area four positive anomalies were revealed: Sh3 (16; 3), Sh4 (16; 13), Sh5 (21; 16) and Sh6 (20; 21). They are all single circular structures, with a radius of c. 2–2.5 m; intensity of the magnetic

field ranges from 10 to 20 nT. The anomaly Sh6 appears to continue eastward. These anomalies may be caused by single voids or caves. The most promising anomalies among them are Sh3 and Sh6. 2. Negative elliptical anomalies. It should be noted that intensive anomalies of this type in the ‘rocky’ northern part of the survey area may be caused by ecofacts (thick outcrops of limestone), while the negative anomalies in the southern part of the area are more likely due to archaeological features. One of them, the long, arch-shaped negative-anomaly system SH1, continues along the entire width of the map, over 22 m long, from point X20, Y1 to point X14, Y21. Due to the clearly-defined borders of the SH1 system, it is possible to establish its width as c. 1.5–2 m. It seems to be divided into western and eastern portions. The western portion is represented by a large, elliptical anomaly which stretches to point X20, Y11 and has two ‘tongues’ in the south. This anomaly is the most intensive portion of the SH1 system: the intensity of the magnetic field here reaches over 25 nT. Further to the northeast the system is comprised of two separate elliptical anomalies, the centers of which are located at points X17, Y15 and X15, Y20 respectively. Northwest of the eastern portion of SH1 and parallel to it we see a similar negative anomaly, SH2, which stretches for 6 m (from point X14, Y12 to point X11, Y16) and also has two ‘tongues’ to the north and northwest. These negative anomalies may be caused by ancient features such as pavements, floors or walls.

CONCLUSIONS The surveyed area seems to offer the potential for locating natural voids, caves and other archaeological features connected with human activities. At this initial stage of investigation it is impossible to separate ‘useful’ magnetic anomalies, i.e., those reflecting human activities, from anomalies caused by natural voids. A careful study of soil magnetic properties could provide the data required for this separation. It would then be necessary to undertake a series of test excavations within the area. The primary anomalies recommended for such tests are Sh3, Sh6, Sh10 and Sh12. For optimal arrangement of the test excavation, these squares should be remapped along a more detailed grid (0.5 × 0.5 m or 0.25 × 0.25m).

CHAPTER SURVEY CHAPTER14: 11:THE THEMAGNETIC HUMAN REMAINS

SH1–2: Negative magnetic anomalies probably caused by artificial structures (pavements, floors, walls) Sh3–13: Positive magnetic anomalies probably caused by large voids or caves *: Rock outcrops Fig. 14.1. Total magnetic field map with elements of interpretation.

161

162

VERED SONIAESHED ITKIS

NOTE 1 nanoTesla (nT) is a unit of measurement of the intensity of the magnetic field.

REFERENCES Clark A.J. 1990. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. London. Dalan R.A. and Banerjee S.K. 1996. Soil Magnetism, An Approach for Examining Archaeological Landscapes. Geophysical Research Letters 23:185–188. Ellwood B.B, Petruso K.M., Harold F.B. and Korkuti M. 1996. Paleoclimate Characterization and Intra-Site Correlation Using Magnetic Susceptibility Measurements; an Example from Konispol Cave, Albania. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:263–271. Hansen R.O. 2001. Gravity and Magnetic Methods at the Turn of the Millennium. Geophysics 66:36–37. Heimmer D.H. and De Vore S.L. 1995. Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Investigations. (Revised ed.). Denver. Hesse A. 1980. Prospection magnétique du site de Ben Shemen. In J. Perrot and D. Ladiray. Tombes à ossuaires de la région

côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Pp. 95–100. Itkis S.E. and Eppelbaum L.V. 1999. First Results of Magnetic Prospecting Application at the Prehistoric Sites of Israel. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28:177–187. Itkis S., Goring-Morris N., Goren Y. and Tsatskin A. 1999. Soil Magnetic Study in the Vicinity of the Early Neolithic Site Kfar Hahoresh (Transactions of the Annual Meeting of the Israel Geological Society, Dead Sea). Dead Sea. P. 38. Tite M.S. and Mullins C.E. 1971. Enhancement of the Magnetic Susceptibility of Soils on Archaeological Sites. Archaeometry 13:209–219. Wynn J.C. 1986. Review of Geophysical Methods Used in Archaeology. Geoarchaeology 1:245–257.

163

CHAPTER 11: THE HUMAN REMAINS

CHAPTER 15

THE R ADIOCARBON DATES FROM CAVE 4 ISRAEL CARMI AND DROR SEGAL

INTRODUCTION

the OxCal program (Bronk-Ramsey 1995), which compensates for the variable concentration of 14C by calibration with dendro-age of tree rings.

In December 1994 two charcoal samples1 from Cave 4 at Shoham (North) were submitted for radiocarbon dating to the laboratory of the Weizmann Institute of Science:

R ESULTS The results of the measurements are given in Table 15.1.

No.

Lab. No.

Wood Species

Location

1

RT-2167

Quercus calliprinos

Area A1, Cave 4, L167

2

RT-2168

Olea europaea

Area A1, Cave 4, L172

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The chemical process of cleaning the samples and preparing them in the lab was efficiently performed and no problems were encountered. The two samples, of identical age, originated in a layer directly overlying Chalcolithic burial remains. Since both samples are from long-lived trees, their age may be several decades earlier than the contexts from which they derive.

The samples were treated with acid and alkali. The residual 14C activity of the samples was measured in proportional counters; it was then corrected for possible changes in the isotopic composition by chemical processes (using the 13C data) and from this we calculated the conventional 14C age (ybp). For the calculation of the calibrated calendric age we used

Table 15.1. 14C Samples from Shoham (N) No.

Lab. No.

δ13C(‰)

∆14C(‰)

YBP1

Calibrated Age (BCE)2

1

RT-2167

-23.1

-476.8 ± 3.6

5160 ± 55

4040–3815

2

RT-2168

-22.1

-475.3 ± 3.3

5140 ± 50

3990–3810

1 2

Conventional radiocarbon age in years before 1950 CE. Calibration with OxCal program.

NOTE 1 The botanical identifications were carried out by Dr. N. Liphschitz of Tel Aviv University (above, Chap. 12).

REFERENCE Bronk-Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37: 425–430.

164

VERED ESHED

mklm

CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

165

CHAPTER 16

CONCLUSIONS RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

The contribution of the Shoham (North) excavations to the settlement history of the central coastal plain (the Lower Yarqon–Ayyalon drainage basin) during the Late Chalcolithic period, Early Bronze Age I and Intermediate Bronze Age is summarized below.

CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD Settlement Patterns As a result of intensive public works carried out in this region (the Trans-Israel Highway and construction of the towns of Shoham and, most recently, El‘ad), a chain of Chalcolithic burial caves and a few settlement sites have been revealed. These discoveries have changed, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, our conception of the Chalcolithic settlement pattern not only in this particular area, but in the coastal plain as a whole. The Chalcolithic burial caves exposed at Shoham (N) must be understood as only a sample of an entire system of cemeteries situated in karstic caves in the limestone foothills of the mountainous Shomeron Anticline. This system is known so far in the central coastal plain from Ben Shemen in the south to the vicinity of El‘ad (Mazor) in the north and beyond (see Excursus 1, this volume). The excavations at Shoham (South) (Gophna and Feldstein 1998; see also Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:10*, 19*), Giv‘at Oranim (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004)1 and Nevallat (van den Brink et al. 2001) enable us for the first time to obtain some idea of the Chalcolithic settlements located in the foothills, whose inhabitants were burying their dead in these karstic caves. It seems clear that as a result of continuous agricultural activities over thousands of years (especially the clearing of fieldstones), the Chalcolithic settlement system which once existed on the limestone hills, well above and

on the edge of the alluvium, has been obliterated. The excavated karstic burial caves at Shoham (N) can be seen as only a remnant of the settlements which existed nearby, both in caves as well as above ground. On the margins of the hamra hills to the west of Shoham, within the Lower Yarqon–Ayyalon drainage basin, remnants of Chalcolithic settlements have been discovered beneath the heavy alluvium, as at Yehud and Ono (Kfar ‘Ana; van den Brink, Golan and Shmueli 2001; Buchennino 2002), Tel Lod (Yannai and Marder 2000:63*; van den Brink 2002:286, Str. V; in preparation: Fig. 2, Table 1) and, further to the southwest, at Tel Hamid (Tal and Blockman 1998). Mention should also be made of a possible Early Chalcolithic (Wadi Rabah) domestic(?) use of Caves 2 and 4 at Shoham (N) and a Late Chalcolithic post-burial use of some mortuary caves for domestic purposes, as at Shoham (N) Cave 4. The Chalcolithic settlement picture emerging from this particular area may be considered as a pars pro toto of the overall pattern which existed throughout the other sub-regions of the coastal plain, such as the Sharon Plain (Gophna 1990). Eventually, the distribution map of Chalcolithic burial sites containing collective, secondary reburials in ossuaries (see Excursus 1: Fig. Exc. 1.2, Tables Exc. 1.1–Exc. 1.2) may be seen as complementary to the Chalcolithic settlement distribution map (Fig. 16.1; Table 16.1). Chalcolithic settlement size can be determined by considering the little evidence available from relevant excavations along the coastal plain such as at Tel Aviv, Mezer and Tel Esur (Tell Asawir), and the archaeological survey data collected over the last 50 years, together with a spate of recent Chalcolithic discoveries made in the Shoham–Lod–Ben Shemen area. From the collective data one cannot avoid the conclusion that the mean size of Chalcolithic settlements in the coastal plain was quite small.

166

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Fig. 16.1. Distribution map of Chalcolithic settlement sites.

CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

167

Table 16.1. Chalcolithic Settlement Sites in the Coastal Plain of Israel No.

Site

Remarks

Map Reference

References

1

Nevé David

E

1472/2454

Kaufman and Ronen 1985:88

2

Sheikh Suliman Cave (Ornit Cave)

E; Carmel

1494/2402

Olami 1984:46–49

3

‘Ezba Cave

E

1482/2353

Stekelis and Haas 1952

4

‘En Hod

S

1483/2343

Ronen and Olami 1978:14 (Site No. 95); Olami 1984:101–102

5

Tel Megadim

E; kurkar

1452/2366

Wolff 2000:23*

6

El-Wad Cave

E; Carmel

1471/2307

Gophna, pers. obs.; Garrod and Bates 1937

7

Site 177 (near Dor)

S

1427/2229

Collection Kibbutz Ma‘ayan Zvi; Gophna 1974:22; Olami 1984:162

8

Tel Esur (Tell Asawir)

E

1523/2097

Gophna 1974:70; Yannai 1997:75–77

9

Mezer

E

1547/2050

Dothan 1957; 1959

10

Khirbet Kafr Bassa

S

1521/2053

Discovered by E. Yannai; Gophna 1974:27

11

Magal

S

1540/1992

Gophna 1974

12

Tell Ifshar

E

1976/1415

Porath, in press

13

Olesh

S

1473/1937

HA 1978:16–17

14

Tel Shevah/Tel Tnuvot

E

1471/1905

Yannai 2000

15

Kh. Ras Ali (west of Farun)

S

1514/1884

Gophna 1974:33

16

Kh. Jalama

E

1496/1848

HA 1977:24–25

17

Shefayim

S; campsite

1332/1806

Gophna 1992b

18

Apollonia/Tell Arshaf

E; sand

177695/132310

Rosenberger 1999

19

El-Qibli

S

1308/1729

Gophna 1978

20

Tel Gerisa

S

1320/1665

Gophna, pers. obs.

21

Tel Aviv, Gané HaTa‘arukha

E

1316/1677

Kaplan 1972; HA 1972:24; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:1453

22

Tel Aviv, Jabotinsky Street

E

1308/1659

Kaplan 1958:4–9; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:1452

23

Tel Aviv, Hamasger Street

E; pit

1300/1636

HA 1982b:48; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:1452

24

Tel Aphek

E; Area G

1436/1678

Beck and Kochavi 1993:66

25

Giv‘at Ha-Shelosha

S

1428/1677

Gophna, pers. obs. 1992

26

‘En Nebi Hatta

S; limestone; cupmarks

1467/1698

HA 1973:27; Kochavi and Beit-Arieh 1994: Site Nos. 3–4

27

Wadi Rabah

E

1459/1678

Kaplan 1958

28

Fejja (Petah Tiqwa)

E

1413/1664

Kaplan 1993:445; Kochavi and Beit-Arieh 1994:37

29

Hiriya

E

1338/1604

HA 1976:28

30

Azor

E

1316/1592

Shapira and Gophna, pers. obs.; Golani and van den Brink 1999: Plan 1, Site No. 14

31

Kfar Ana

E

1377/1589

van den Brink, Golan and Shemueli 2001; Buchennino 2002

32

Yehud

E

1397/1598

van den Brink, Golan and Shemueli 2001

33

N. slope Nahal Mazor

S

14662/16172

D. Amit, pers. comm.

34

Giv‘at Oranim

E

1470/1571

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:41*, Site No. 70; Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004

35

Shoham (North) Shoham (South)

E

1444/1575 1444/1549

168

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Table 16.1 (cont.) No.

Site

Remarks

Map Reference

References

36

Nevallat

E; limestone cupmarks

1465/1541

van den Brink et al. 2001

37

Lod

E

1407/1522

Kaplan 1977:68; van den Brink 1999; Yannai and Marder 2000

38

Gezer

E; 1407 Str. XXVI and Phase 14 in Field I.

1425/1427

Dever 1993:498

39

Tel Hamid

E; alluvium

40

Palmahim

E; pits

1234/1488

Tal and Blockman 1998 Gophna 1974:115–117

41

El-Maghar

E

1294/1385

Kaplan 1953:141; Gophna 1974:51–52

42

Tel Malot

E

1374/1404

Shavit 1994:49

43

Bet Hilqiya/ Revadim Quarry

E

1330/1327 1325/1328

Gudovitch and Pipano 1998

44

Nahal Elteqe

S

13528/13334

Dagan 1983:57

45

Tel Miqne

E

1356/1315

Dothan and Gitin 1993:1052

46

Nahal Lakhish

S

1191/1341

Gophna 1974:75

47

Ashdod

S; dunes

1165/1324

Gophna, pers. obs.

48

Sedé Uziya

S

1189/1302

Gophna 1974:75

49

Moshav Giv‘ati

S

1206/1276

HA 1982a:36

50

‘En Zurim

S

1232/1220

HA 1979:43

51

Gat Guvrin

E

1291/1171

Perrot 1962:387; Khalaily 2002

52

Tel ‘Erani

E

129/113

Brandl 1989; Kempinski and Gilead 1991:171

53

Tel Ashqelon

E

107/119

Stager 1993:105

54

Tel Sheqef

S

1230/1075

Gophna 1974:76

55

Tel Hesi

E

1224/1063

Fargo 1993:631

56

Nahal Ruhama

S

1188/1018

Gophna 1974:77

57

Nahal Hoga

S

1164/0994

Gophna, pers. obs.

E = Excavation; S = Survey

It should be noted, however, that there is a serious imbalance between our knowledge of Chalcolithic burial sites in the coastal plain and the available data on size and social organization of contemporary settlements. Only a few of the settlement sites listed in Table 16.1 have been excavated. Most were identified during surface surveys only. The available data are quite incompatible with theories and models of social organization which have developed in recent decades, relating in particular to the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley and the lower Besor drainage system (Levy 1995). In the coastal plain we have a series of small, dispersed clusters of domestic architecture, in which no settlement hierarchy can be discerned. Neither do the collective burials in caves seem to reflect significant differences in social status among the deceased (see Joffe, in press).

When comparing the cemetery distribution map (see Excursus 1: Fig. Exc. 1.1) with the settlement distribution map (Fig. 16.1), a clear relationship between the location of settlements and nearby burial sites (in the kurkar ridges to the west and limestone foothills to the east) can be established. Examples include the close proximity of the settlement remains at Nevé David and the burial remains at Horbat Castra; the Tel Megadim settlement remains and the ‘Ezba Cave burial remains; the Khirbet Ras Ali and Tel Tnuvot settlement remains and the Sha‘ar Efrayim burial remains; the Tel Gerisa settlement remains and the Bené Beraq burial remains; the Nevallat–Giv‘at Oranim settlement remains and the Shoham–Mazor burial remains, etc. This pattern, which repeats itself over and over again, should finally lay to rest the assumption, due to the once near-absence of settlement sites in the archaeological record, that the

CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

burial caves were used by a non-sedentary, nomadic population. The new data clearly demonstrate that the cemeteries served a sedentary population living in small groups in the coastal plain and practicing mixed farming. Subsistence Of the 43 wood and seed samples deriving from the Chalcolithic layers at Shoham (N), 41 (95%) belong to olive. Only single specimens of two other species were found (see Table 12.1). The very high percentage of olive within the archaeobotanical assemblage indicates the existence of olive trees in the immediate vicinity of the caves. Olive cultivation is known since the Early Bronze Age (Liphschitz et al. 1991). However, these high percentages suggest that propagation of wild olives by man could have started during the Chalcolithic period, and that olive cultivation was an important part of the economy (see also Liphschitz et al. 1996; van den Brink et al. 2001; Lovell 2002) In contrast to L. Horwitz’ cautiously expressed skepticism (Horwitz, forthcoming), we do believe that deposition of faunal remains within the Shoham caves was due largely to human activity and only to a lesser extent to animal (scavenger) interaction. The high number of donkey bones and teeth in the Chalcolithic faunal assemblage is noteworthy; it is yet another indication that they were used as beasts of burden as early as the Late Chalcolithic (see Grigson 1995:258). Cultural Ascription, Affinities, Relative and Absolute Chronology It is clear from the analysis of the various pottery assemblages (above, Chap. 6) that the material culture of Chalcolithic Shoham is very much related to that of the Be’er Sheva‘ sites such as Abu Matar, Bir es-Safadi and Wadi Zoumeili, although with many regional variations. One such variation comprises the unexpected, and more than just occasional, appearance of pottery vessels with one of two types of ledges handles in Chalcolithic contexts in Caves 2 and 4 (see Figs. 6.7:5 and 6.32:1–6). Though apparently absent at many other sites in subregions ascribed to the Be’er Sheva‘ cultural facies of the Chalcolithic, similar ledge handles have been found in Chalcolithic contexts at Sha‘ar Efrayim in the northern Sharon (unpublished burial cave; Gophna,

169

pers. obs.), Mazor (unpublished burial context; van den Brink, pers. obs.),2 Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 130:2, 4) and Khirbet el-‘Alya (Ramat Bet Shemesh) in the northern Shephelah (unpublished settlement context; Gophna, pers. obs.). This perhaps suggests a regional phenomenon, stretching along the foothills bordering the coastal plain to the east.3 Since ledge handles are considered one of the hallmarks of the subsequent Early Bronze Age, it seems a legitimate question whether these Chalcolithic (prototype) ledge handles are chronologically close to the transition into the next distinct cultural phase, that is, the initial EB I (see Braun 2000; Yekutieli 2000). Further support for such a near-synchronization may perhaps be seen in the sporadic appearance of Gray Burnished Ware sherds in primarily Late Chalcolithic4 burial environments at Shoham (N) and Mazor (Milevski, pers. comm.). It should be noted in this context that the ‘survival’ of certain Chalcolithic potting techniques in the initial phase of EB I has been discerned at sites such as Ashqelon Afridar Area G (Braun and Gophna 2004) and Tel Halif Terrace, Silo Site (Alon and Yekutieli 1995). In this respect, the recent (and as yet unpublished) findings at Sha‘ar Efrayim could be of significance. At this site, in Cave 1, the earliest phase of use was during the Late Chalcolithic period for burial purposes, and the material culture was not unlike Shoham (N). Subsequently, part of the cave was walled off by people who buried their dead together with ‘classical’ knobbed GBW bowls as well as other, mainly diminutive vessels typical of EB I (burial) assemblages (van den Brink 2005a). Another notably regional variation at Shoham (N) that may or may not have chronological significance is a highly distinctive type of combing, which creates a quilted motif, suggestive of basketry. This technique is characteristic of a substantial part of the Chalcolithic pottery from Cave 4 (above, Chap. 6). A similarlycombed holemouth jar fragment was recovered in a Chalcolithic dwelling context at Nevallat (van den Brink and Lazar, in preparation: Fig. 9:6). A single fragment of a bowl with a similar combed exterior derives from a Chalcolithic burial at Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 76:10; Bord de vase. Surface striée). Two combed body sherds were found in a small probe at Yehud (van den Brink, Golan and Shemueli 2001: Fig. 3:5), and a number were noted in fills near bedrock levels in the excavations at Palmahim Quarry (E. Braun, pers. comm.). Such combing is

170

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

a common feature in pottery assemblages deriving from a transitional Late Chalcolthic–Early EB I site at Horbat Hadat (Modi‘in–Buchman; E.C.M. van den Brink, pers. obs.). Additional unpublished examples are known, for example, from Mazor in a burial cave with predominantly Chalcolithic material (Milevski, pers. comm.) and in fills from Tel Lod, which have yielded Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery (Yannai and Marder, pers. comm.). This same kind of combing was also observed on several jars in a cache at Revadim Quarry (located along the Jerusalem–Ashqelon road; Gudovich and Pipano 1998: Figs. 1:5; 2:1, 3, 5), as well as on sherds uncovered at the Chalcolithic site of Nahal Lakhish near Ashdod (Fig. 16.1: No. 46; Gophna, pers. obs.). Together, the distribution of these sherds suggests a regional, coastal practice, likely dated to the Chalcolithic period.5 Large-scale rescue excavations at Tel Lod revealed an assemblage similar to that of Shoham and other Chalcolithic sites in the vicinity (Yannai and Marder 2000), including, surprisingly, some ceramic ossuary fragments (E. Yannai, pers. comm.; van den Brink, pers. obs.). The ceramic ossuaries are a common denominator at all Late Chalcolithic burial sites in the coastal plain.6 The basalt vessel assemblage at Shoham, in particular the nine fenestrated pedestal bowls (Chap. 9), resembles assemblages from Be’er Sheva‘ sites such as Abu Matar and Bir es-Safadi. Recent research has shown that such basalt vessels have a much wider distribution than previously suspected. One recently recognized sub-type found at Shoham (see Figs. 9.14, 9.15) and at a few other sites in the vicinity such as Nahal Qana Cave and Yehud, has also been found much further to the north in Peqi‘in Cave (van den Brink, Rowan and Braun 1999:178, Fig. 9). Two 14C dates from Chalcolithic deposits associated with a fireplace (see Plans 3.8, 3.9) atop Late Chalcolithic burials in ceramic ossuaries in Cave 4 (above, Chap. 15) gave an average calibrated date of 4040–3810 BCE, providing an ante quem date for the underlying burials. An additional 14C date from Shoham (S) (Liphschitz et al. 1996) also indicates that the Late Chalcolithic presence at Shoham may fall within the first quarter of the fourth millennium BCE. This seems further corroborated by two radiometric datings from nearby Nevallat (van den Brink et al. 2001:43). A number of Canaanean flint blades were found in Cave 4 at Shoham (N) (Chap. 10), in clear association

with the fireplace dated by 14C to the first quarter of the fourth millennium BCE. The presence of Canaanean blades, a hallmark of the Early Bronze Age, in a Chalcolithic context seems problematic. It cannot be excluded a priori that they derive from a later, EB I re-use of the cave. On the other hand, Rowan and Levy (1994) have discussed the presence of socalled proto-Canaanean blades in a clear Chalcolithic context at Gilat. Another instance of Canaanean blades in an apparently secure, Late Chalcolithic context was recently revealed at Gat Guvrin (Nahal Qomem), located c. 2 km north of Tel ‘Erani/Kibbutz Gat (Khalaily 2002; Khalaily and Hermon, forthcoming). At this site, Canaanean blades, apparently produced by Chalcolithic technique (H. Khalaily, pers. comm.), were found in sealed Late Chalcolithic deposits.7 Other occurrences of Canaanean blades in predominantly Late Chalcolithic burial caves are seen at Sha‘ar Efrayim Cave 1 (Khalaily, pers. comm.) and Mazor (Milevski, pers. comm.). Admittedly, as in the case of Shoham (N) Cave 4, both the latter caves were reused during EB I, and the evidence, therefore, seems equivocal. Until Canaanean blades are found in singleperiod, Late Chalcolithic (preferably non-cave) sites, this question will remain unsolved.

EARLY BRONZE AGE I A few pottery sherds, including some early Gray Burnished Ware (see Fig. 7:1), may indicate the use of two of the caves (Caves 1 and 4) at the very beginning of EB I. These sherds may be associated with the early EB I finds in Area A2 (unpublished). The substantial amount of material dating to the late EB I exposed in Caves 1 and 2 may be considered as refuse and reflects the existence of a large settlement at nearby Khirbet Abu Hamid (Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997: Site No. 56). This site, partially excavated prior to the present excavations (Nadelman 1995), seems to be one of a number of sites that were developing in this phase of EB I in the area. The largest sites existed at Tel Dalit (Gophna 1996) and Tel Lod (Kaplan 1977; Yannai and Marder 2000; van den Brink 2002). The phenomenon of a Chalcolithic burial cave reused during the late EB I has recently been attested in yet another cave in the northeastern part of Shoham (van den Brink, 2005b), and repeats itself, for instance, at nearby Mazor (Milevski, pers. comm.).

CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

INTERMEDIATE BRONZE AGE A primary burial with ceramic funerary gifts dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age was found in Cave 1, and pottery refuse belonging to the same cultural horizon was uncovered in Caves 2 and 4. Another burial cave of this period was recently excavated nearby in the northeastern part of Shoham (Kletter 2002). These finds indicate the presence of people settling in or near this place. Traces of these dwellers were also detected at Khirbet Abu Hamid (Nadelman’s 1992 excavations; R. Gophna, pers. obs.), as well as at Tel Hadid and Tel

171

Lod (Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:11, 19; van den Brink, in preparation: Fig. 2, Table 1) and Nevallat, where both settlement (Yekutieli 2002) and burial remains (van den Brink et al. 2001:36, n. 2; van den Brink and Lazar, in preparation) were exposed. The Shoham data compliment our accumulating knowledge of the Intermediate Bronze Age in other sub-regions of the coastal plain. These remains have been exposed more often by development works rather than by archaeological surveys (Gophna and Portugali 1988; Gophna 1992a).

NOTES 1

The authors believe that Oren and Scheftelowitz (1999) have put too much stress on the importance of the subsurface features of this site (reminiscent of similar features excavated at a number of contemporary sites around Be’er Sheva‘), detrimental to the above-ground remains. Most of the above-ground remains were removed in antiquity, thus presenting an unbalanced picture of Giv‘at Oranim. 2 Our thanks to E. Braun and I. Milevski for drawing our attention to these vessels, two large ‘V-shaped’ bowls with pronounced ledge handles, similar to those found in Caves 2 and 4 at Shoham (N). 3 It should be noted that the sporadic presence of ledge handles in Chalcolithic ceramic assemblages was also noted in the northern part of the country, for example at Tel Turmus (Dayan 1969: Fig. 8:12–13), Asherat (Smithline 2001: Fig. 13:8) and Be’er Zunam (Shalem 2003:68). This observation of ledge handles in Chalcolithic contexts is a clear refutation of Garfinkel’s (1999b:269) cautionary remark that precludes the “inclusion of ledge handles in the Ghassulian [read: Late Chalcolithic] assemblage”. 4 For a recent discussion of the chrono-terminology for the Chalcolithic, see Joffe and Dessel 1995. 5 Eliot Braun kindly drew our attention to the occurrence of a nearly complete jar with similarly-combed surface uncovered at Jericho (Garstang et al. 1935: Pl. XXXIX:18). The jar is illustrated in a plate carrying the caption “Pottery from the lower EB, Chalcolithic and Neolithic levels”. Unfortunately, no further information is provided. Garfinkel (1999b:148–149, Photo 82:1 and Fig. 91:3 [= Ben-Dor 1936: Pl. XXXIII:11]) illustrates two similarly-combed body

sherds also from Jericho. Their ascription by the latter to an Early Chalcolithic (Wadi Rabah) horizon is problematic since all other parallels of this surface-combing technique cited above date from the Late Chalcolithic period, unless we are to assume that this technique was first used during the Early Chalcolithic period, went out of use and then eventually resurfaced during the Late Chalcolithic period. It seems more likely that the body sherds are intrusive. Perhaps they originally derived from fills of Late Chalcolithic tombs at the same site (see Garfinkel 1999a). A Late Chalcolithic date for the jar seems further corroborated by the presence of a potter’s mark incised on the vessel’s shoulder before firing. Potters’ marks are frequently attested in the Late Chalcolithic pottery assemblages at Shoham (see Figs. 6.3:9–10, 6.33, 6.34), some incised on the very same combed vessels (see Figs. 6.2:9; 6.33:7). This feature is also seen in the Chalcolithic pottery of Mazor (I. Milevski, pers. comm.) and Horbat Hadat (Modi‘in–Buchman; E.C.M. van den Brink, pers. obs.). Perhaps petrographic analysis of the combed jar found at Jericho, presently kept in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, could reveal whether it was manufactured in the central coastal plain area (where all other known examples derive from) or elsewhere. 6 For a recent interpretation of what these Chalcolithic ossuaries might represent, see Bar-Yosef and Ayalon 2001. 7 Khalaily (2002) states “When the initial processing of the flint tools was completed it became clear that most of the Canaanean blades were recovered from sealed loci that included fragments of pottery vessels and flint tools from the Chalcolithic period.”

172

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

REFERENCES Alon D. and Yekutieli Y. 1995. The Tel Halif Terrace ‘Silo Site’ and Its Implications for the Early Bronze Age I. ‘Atiqot 27:149–189. Bar-Yosef O. and Ayalon E. 2001. Chalcolithic Ossuaries— What Do They Imitate and Why? Qadmoniot 34:34–43. (Hebrew). Beck P. and Kochavi M. 1993. Aphek (in Sharon). NEAEHL 1:62–72. Ben-Dor I. 1936. Pottery of the Middle and Late Neolithic Periods. In J. Garstang, I. Ben-Dor and G.M. Fitzgerald eds. Jericho: City and Necropolis (Report for Sixth and Concluding Seasons, 1936) LAAA 23:77–90. Brandl B. 1989. Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel ‘Erani. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 357–387. Braun E. 2000. Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze Age I: Part of the ‘Missing Link’. In G. Philip and D. Baird eds. Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant (Levantine Archaeology 2). Sheffield. Pp. 113–128. Braun E. and Gophna R. 2004. Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar—Area G. ‘Atiqot 45:185–242. Brink E.C.M. van den. 1999. Lod, Nevé Yaraq. HA–ESI 110:47*–48*. Brink E.C.M van den. 2002. An Egyptian Presence at the End of the Late Early Bronze Age I at Tel Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel. In E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy eds. Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through Early 3rd Millennium B.C.E. (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). London. Pp. 286–305. Brink E.C.M. van den. 2005a. Sha‘ar Efrayim. HA–ESI 117. www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=170& mag_id=110 (accessed November, 2005). Brink E.C.M. van den. 2005b. Shoham (Northeast). HA–ESI 117. www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=153& mag_id=110 (accessed November, 2005). Brink E.C.M. van den. Forthcoming: Lod, Nevé Yaraq. From Top to Bottom: A Roman Pottery Kiln and Sparse Pottery Neolithic A (‘Lodian’) Remains. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den. In preparation. Lod. Late EB I Settlements and Sporadic Chalcolithic PNA Remains at the Tel of Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M van den and Lazar D. In preparation. A Chalcolithic Habitation and Installation Site and Later Remains along Nahal Nevallat. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den, Golan S. and Shmueli O. 2001. A Note on the Archaeological Investigations at Yehud and Some Chalcolithic Finds. ‘Atiqot 42:25–34. Brink E.C.M. van den, Horwitz L.K., Khalaily H., Liphschitz N., Mienis H.K. and Nagar Y. 2004. A Chalcolithic Dwelling and Burial Cave at Horvat Castra. IEJ 54/2:129–153. Brink E.C.M. van den, Liphschitz N., Lazar D. and Bonani G. 2001. Chalcolithic Dwelling Remains, Cup Marks and Olive (Olea europaea) Stones from Nevallat. IEJ 51:36–43.

Brink E.C.M. van den, Rowan Y.M. and Braun E. 1999. Pedestalled Basalt Bowls of the Chalcolithic: New Variations. IEJ 49:161–183. Buchennino A. 2002. Ono (A). ESI–HA 114:114*. Dagan Y. 1983. Shephela Survey. HA 82:56–59. Dayan Y. 1969. Tel Turmus in the Huleh Valley. IEJ 19:65–78. Dever W.G 1993. Gezer. NEAEHL 2:496–506. Dothan M. 1957. Excavations at Meser, 1956. Preliminary Report on the First Season. IEJ 7:217–228. Dothan M. 1959. Excavations at Meser, 1957. Preliminary Report on the Second Season. IEJ 9:13–29. Dothan T. and Gitin S. 1993. Miqne, Tel (Ekron). NEAEHL 3:1051–1059. Epstein C. 1985. Laden Animal Figurines from Chalcolithic Palestine. BASOR 258:53–62. Fargo V.M. 1993. Hesi, Tell el-. NEAEHL 2:630–634. Garfinkel Y. 1999a. Ghassulian Chalcolithic Presence at Jericho. Levant 31:65–69. Garfinkel Y. 1999b. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant (Qedem 39). Jerusalem. Garrod D.A.E. and Bates D.M. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel I: Excavations at the Wady el-Mughara. Oxford. Garstang J., Droop J.P. and Crowfoot J. 1935. Jericho: City and Necropolis—Fifth Report. LAAA 22:144–182. Golani A. and van den Brink E.C.M. 1999. Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age IA Settlement of Azor. ‘Atiqot 38:1–49. Gophna R. 1974. The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel during the Early Bronze Age. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Gophna R. 1978. The Archaeological Survey in the Central Coastal Plain, 1977. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 5:136–147. Gophna R. 1990. The Settlement of the Sharon in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages: Processes, Patterns and Landscapes. In D. Grossman, A. Degani and A. Shmueli eds. Hasharon between Yarkon and Carmel. Tel Aviv. Pp. 161– 166 (Hebrew). Gophna R. 1992a. The Intermediate Bronze Age. In A. Ben-Tor ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven–London. Pp. 126–158. Gophna R. 1992b. Shefayim: A Chalcolithic Campsite in the Southern Sharon Coastal Plain. Tel Aviv 19:195–200. Gophna R. 1996. Excavations at Tel Dalit. An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv. Gophna R. and Beit-Arieh I. 1997. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Lod (80). Jerusalem. Gophna R. and Feldstein A. 1998. Shoham (South). ESI 18: 72–73. Gophna R. and Portugali Y. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 269:11–28. Grigson C. 1995. Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern Levant. In T.E. Levy ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Pp. 245–268.

CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSIONS

Gudovitch S. and Pipano S. 1998. A Late Chalcolithic Pottery Assemblage from the Revadim Quarry. ‘Atiqot 35:1*–5* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 159). HA 1972. Tel Aviv (Migrashei Ha-Taarucha) [J. Kaplan and H. Ritter-Kaplan]. HA 41/42:26. HA 1973. Archaeological Survey of Israel: Sharon (Site 69/4 in the Kafr Qasim vicinity) [M. Kochavi]. HA 47:27. HA 1976. Hiriya [R. Gophna]. HA 59/60:28. HA 1977. Kh. el-Jalama [Y. Porath]. HA 63/64:24–25. HA 1978. Olesh – 1977 [M. Novak]. HA 65/66:16–17. HA 1979. News in Brief: ‘En Zurim [Y. Porath]. HA 72:43. HA 1982a. Giv‘ati [Y. Porath]. HA 80/81:36. HA 1982b. Tel Aviv (Ha-Masger St.) [H. Ritter-Kaplan]. HA 78/79:48. Horwitz L.K. Forthcoming. The Faunal Remains from Late Chalcolithic–Bronze Age Dwelling and Burial Caves at Shoham (North), Lod Valley. ‘Atiqot. Joffe A.H. In press. Slouching toward Beersheva: Chalcolithic Mortuary Practices in Local and Regional Context. BASOR. Joffe A.H and Dessel J.P. 1995. Redefining Chronology and Terminology for the Chalcolitihic of the Southern Levant. Current Anthropology 36:507–518. Kaplan J. 1953. Research in the Gedera el-Mughar Area. BIES 17:138–143. (Hebrew). Kaplan J. 1958. The Chalcolithic and Neolithic Settlements in Tel-Aviv and Neighborhood. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Kaplan J. 1972. The Archaeology and History of Tel AvivJaffa. BA 35:66–95. Kaplan J. 1977. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod. EI 13:57–75. Kaplan J. 1993. Fejja. NEAEHL 2:444–445. Kaplan J. and Ritter-Kaplan H. 1993. Tel Aviv. NEAEHL 4:1451–1457. Kaufman D. and Ronen A. 1985. Nevé David (Haifa)—1984/ 1985. ESI 4:88. Kempinski A. and Gilead I. 1991. New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the1985–1988 Seasons. Tel Aviv 18:164–191. Khalaily H. 2002. Nahal Qomem. HA–ESI 114:85*–86*. Khalaily H. and Hermon S. Forthcoming. Gat Guvrin (Nahal Qomem). A Late Chalcolithic Site in the Southern Coastal Plain. ‘Atiqot. Kletter R. 2002. An Intermediate Bronze Age Tomb at Shoham. ‘Atiqot 43:25–28* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 254). Kochavi M. and Beit-Arieh I. 1994. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Rosh Ha-‘Ayin (78). Jerusalem. Levy T.E. 1995. Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies— Chalcolithic Period (4500–3500 BCE). In T.E. Levy ed.

173

The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Pp. 226–244. Liphschitz N., Gophna R., Bonani G. and Feldstein A. 1996. Wild Olive (Olea europaea) Stones from a Chalcolithic Cave at Shoham, Israel and Their Implications. Tel Aviv 23:143–153. Liphschitz N., Hartman M., Gophna R. and Biger G. 1991. Beginning of Olive (Olea europaea) Cultivation in the Old World. A Reassessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:441–453. Lovell J. 2002. Shifting Subsistence Patterns: Some Ideas about the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 28:89–102. Nadelman Y. 1995. Shoham. ESI 14:80–81. Olami Y. 1984. Prehistoric Carmel. Jerusalem–Haifa. Oren R. and Scheftelowitz N. 1999. Giv‘at Oranim (Nahal Bareqet). HA–ESI 110:48*–50*. Perrot J.1962. Gat Guvrin (O. Zeita). RB 69:387–388. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Porath Y. In press. Chalcolithic Cemeteries at Ma‘abarot and Tel Ifshar. ‘Atiqot. Ronen A. and Olami Y. 1978. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Atlit Map (26). Jerusalem. Rosenberger A. 1999. The Chalcolithic Period. In I. Roll and O. Tal eds. Apollonia-Arsuf. Final Report of the Excavations I: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 16). Tel Aviv. Pp. 284–290. Rowan Y.M. and Levy T.E. 1994. Proto-Canaanean Blades of the Chalcolithic Period. Levant 26:167–174. Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R. 2004. Giv‘at Ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site (Salvage Excavations Reports 1). Tel Aviv. Shalem. D. 2003. The Chalcolithic Period Sites in the Mountains of the Galilee—Settlement Distribution and Ceramic Characteristics. MA thesis. University of Haifa (Hebrew). Shavit A. 1994. Tel Malot. ESI 12:49–50. Smithline H. 2001. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Caves at Asherat, Western Galilee. ‘Atiqot 42:35–78. Stager L.A. 1993. Ashkelon. NEAEHL 1:103–112. Stekelis M. and Haas G. 1952. The Abu Usba Cave (Mount Carmel). IEJ 2:15–47. Tal O. and Blockman N. 1998. A Salvage Excavation at Tel Hamid (the Lower Terrace). Tel Aviv 25:142–173. Wolff S. 2000. Tel Megadim (Tel Sahar). ESI 20:23*–24*. Yannai E. 1997. Tel Esur. ESI 16:73–77.

174

RAM GOPHNA AND EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

EXCURSUS 1

175

EXCURSUS 1

CHALCOLITHIC BURIAL CAVES IN COASTAL AND INLAND ISRAEL EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

A major innovation characterizing the Chalcolithic period in Israel is the spatial separation between the living and the dead (Callaway 1963). The introduction of formal cemeteries separated from permanent settlement sites can be seen as an expression of a possible “concern with more clearly defining territorial boundaries and a method of insuring that a corporate group has rights over the use and/or control of crucial but restricted resources” (Levy 1995:234–235; see also de Miroschedji 2000:31–36). Two well-known examples of formal cemeteries dating to the Chalcolithic period are the mortuary complex at Adeimeh in the lower Jordan Valley (Stekelis 1935), which probably served the population living c. 5 km further to the northwest at Tuleilat Ghassul, and that at Mezad Aluf in the northern Negev Desert (Levy and Alon 1979; 1985), which served the Chalcolithic population of nearby Shiqmim. Both are extensive open-air cemeteries with a variety of burial structures, including dolmens, clusters of tumuli,1 grave circles2 and stone-lined cist structures. At Mezad Aluf these cists3 have been tentatively interpreted as temporary burial places to enable the deceased’s body to decompose in preparation for a secondary and final (re)burial, a custom4 evidenced in the nearby grave circles with which these cist graves were found associated. A third and as yet unpublished example is the Chalcolithic cemetery at Nahal Sekher, in the Negev coastal plain. This site also contains grave circles and cist structures (Goren and Fabian 2002:2).5 A fourth case is a small Chalcolithic cemetery at the central coastal site of Palmahim, until recently concealed by sand dunes and presently under excavation. Eight kurkar stone coffins, some of them in pairs, have been uncovered to date within circular and rectangular grave structures built of kurkar stones and slabs in association with stelae (A. Gorzalczany, pers. comm.). These open-air cemeteries displaying varying modes and/or stages of disposal of the dead, apparently associated with settlement sites of the Chalcolithic

Ghassulian and Be’er Sheva‘ cultures, stand in contrast with another kind of burial ground attested for during this period, i.e., collective burial caves.6

BURIAL CAVES Chalcolithic burial caves are either artificial affairs hewn in the kurkar ridges7 just inland from Israel’s coast, or they are natural, karstic caves,8 sometimes adapted to human needs, found further inland in the hill country and highlands.9 To date we know of 39 burial cave sites with over 80 caves, frequently appearing in clusters (see Table Exc. 1.1 and references there). A group of seven karstic caves, used during the Late Chalcolithic period for burial purposes, was recently excavated near Moshav Sha‘ar Efrayim (No. 9). At Giv‘atayim seven caves, used during the Chalcolithic period, were found clustered together (Caves 1–3, 5–8; No. 17). Other examples are Bené Beraq (No. 16), Azor (at least two caves; No. 18), Qula (with at least ten identified Chalcolithic burial caves, six of which have been recently excavated; No. 21), Shoham (N) (Caves 1–4; No. 25), Ben Shemen (six caves [Tombs 502, 505, 506, 510, 516 and 530]; No. 30)10 and Palmahim (11 burial caves; No. 31). Although the majority of the burial caves were ‘initiated’ during the Chalcolithic period, some had been used in earlier periods11 and many caves were re-used in later periods.12 Caves hewn in the kurkar (Fig. Exc. 1.1; Table Exc. 1.1) were excavated at Hadera (No. 7), Kibbutz Ma‘abarot (No. 8), Tel Aviv, Yannai Street (No. 15), Bené Beraq (No. 16), Giv‘atayim (No. 17), Azor (No. 18) and Palmahim (No. 31). Probably because of the friability of the kurkar, these caves usually consist of two rooms (bilobate), separated by a central pillar that was left while digging the kurkar around it as a roof support. Karstic caves (Fig. Exc. 1.1; Table Exc. 1.1) were excavated at Peqi‘in (No. 1), Horbat Castra (No. 2),

176

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Fig. Exc. 1.1. Distribution map of caves hewn into the kurkar ridge(s) and karstic caves, used during the Late Chalcolithic period for burial purposes (see Tables Exc. 1.1, Exc. 1.2 for references to sites).

‘Ezba Cave (No. 4), Shuni (No. 5), Sha‘ar Efrayim (No. 9), Taiyiba (No. 10), Tell el-Far‘ah (N) (Cave U; No. 12), Shechem (No. 13), Nahal Qana Cave (No. 14), Mazor (West) (No. 20), Qula (No. 21), Horbat Hani (West) (No. 22), Shoham (North/Central/South; Nos. 25–28), Nahal Bet ‘Arif (No. 29), Ben Shemen (No. 30), Mesillat Ziyyon (No. 37) and Umm Qatafa (Judean Desert; No. 38). Some, like Peqi‘in Cave (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:147) and Nahal Qana Cave

(Frumkin 1996), developed speleothems (especially stalagmites and stalactites). Extensive surveys in Israel’s coastal plain and central highlands by Gophna (Gophna and Portugali 1988; Gophna 1989; Gophna and Tsuk 1990; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997) indicate an abundance of settlement sites that are associable with these burial caves (see Chap. 16). However, the majority of these settlements still await proper excavation. Recent excavations at

177

EXCURSUS 1

Table Exc. 1.1. Index of Chalcolithic Burial-Cave Sites Containing Evidence of Secondary Burials in Ceramic Ossuaries1 (updated version after van den Brink 1998: Table 1, Fig. 1) No.

Site Name

Type/Status

References

1

Peqi‘in

Burial cave/excavated

Wolff 1996:728–729; Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997, 1999

2

H Castra (Haifa South)

Burial cave/excavated

van den Brink 2000a; van den Brink et al. 2004

3

H Govit

Burial cave/excavated

van den Brink 2000b; van den Brink and Commenge, forthcoming

4

‘Ezba Cave

Ossuary fragments

Stekelis and Haas 1952

5

Shuni

Burial cave/excavated

Peilstöcker, pers. comm.

6

Harish Junction

Ossuary fragment in EB I burial cave No. 45

Yannai, pers. comm.

7

Hadera

Burial caves/excavated

Sukenik 1937

8

Kibbutz Ma‘abarot

Burial cave/excavated

Paley and Porath 1979; Agelarakis et al. 1998; Porath, 2005a

9

Sha‘ar Efrayim

7 burial caves/6 excavated

Oren and Scheftelowitz 1998:77ff.; van den Brink, in press(b).

10

Taiyiba

Burial cave/excavated

Porath 1991; Yannai and Porath, forthcoming

11

Zur Natan (H Migdal)

Ossuary fragment

E. Ayalon pers. comm. (survey [see Ayalon, Neidlinger and Mattews 1989/90: 137])

12

Tell el-Far‘ah (North)

Burial cave/excavated

de Vaux 1957:553–556; Perrot and Ladiray 1980:124; de Miroschedji 1993:434 (Cave U)

13

Shechem

Burial cave/excavated

HA 1976; Klamer 1977; 1981

14

Nahal Qana Cave

Burial cave/excavated

Tsuk and Gopher 1993; Gopher and Tsuk 1996

15

Tel Aviv (Yannai St.)

2 burial caves/excavated

Kaplan 1961:31; Fig. 7; 1972; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:1453

16

Bené Beraq

Various burial caves/excavated

Ory 1946; Kaplan 1963; 1993a:186–187

17

Giv‘atayim

7 burial caves/excavated

Sussman and Ben-Arieh 1966; Kaplan 1993b:520–521;

Burial cave/excavated

I. Kornfeld, pers. comm.

18

Azor

Burial caves/excavated

Perrot 1961; Druks and Tzaferis 1970; Perrot and Ladiray 1980:41–58; Ben-Tor 1993

19

Qurnat Haramiya (Mizpe Afek)

Ossuary fragments and fenestrated basalt bowl

H. Torgë, pers. comm.; van den Brink, in press

20

Mazor (West)

Burial cave/excavated

Milevski, pers. comm.

21

Qula

10 burial caves/ 6 excavated

Milevski and Shevo 1999; Milevski 2001a, b

22

H. Hani (West)

Burial cave/excavated

Lass 1998; 2003

23

Giv‘at Oranim

On-site primary burials; ossuary fragments

Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004

24

Ras es-Summaq

Burial cave/not excavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:30*

25

Shoham (North)

6 burial caves/3 excavated

Gophna 1989; Nadelman 1995; Wolff 1996:729–731; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:36*–37*: Site 54; van den Brink and Gophna 1997, 1998

26

Shoham (Northeast)

Burial cave/partly excavated

van den Brink, 2005b

27

Shoham (Center)

Burial cave/not excavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:43*: Site 79

28

Shoham (South)

2 burial caves/excavated

Gophna and Feldstein 1998

29

Nahal Bet ‘Arif

Burial cave/not excavated

Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:46*: Site 91; IAA archives

30

Ben Shemen

6 burial caves/excavated

Perrot 1967; Perrot and Ladiray 1980; Le Mort and Rabinovich 1994; Gophna and Beit-Arieh 1997:72*: Site 204

31

Palmahim

11 burial caves/excavated

Gophna 1968, in prep.; Gophna and Lifshitz 1980

178

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Table Exc. 1.1 (cont.)

1

No.

Site Name

Type/Status

References

32

Yavne

Ossuary

Perrot and Ladiray 1980:108; Ayalon 1995a:21

33

Bet Gamli’el

Ossuary fragments

Ayalon 1995b:16 (excavated by Y. Shapira)

34

Benaya

Ossuary fragments

Ayalon, pers. comm. (excavated by Y. Shapira [unpublished])

35

Maghar

Ossuary fragments

Ayalon, pers. comm. (excavated by Y. Shapira [unpublished])

36

Gezer

Ossuary fragments

Macalister 1912: Pl. 146:13; Brandl 1982 Perrot and Ladiray 1980:104, 124, 143:3, 144:1

37

Mesillat Ziyyon

Burial cave/excavated

38

Umm Qatafa Cave

Burial cave/excavated

Perrot and Ladiray 1980:124; Perrot 1992

39

Wadi el-Makkukh

Burial cave/excavated

Schick 1998

With the exception of Site Nos. 3, 23 and 39, where primary burials were uncovered.

Kfar ‘Ana and nearby Yehud, situated halfway between the kurkar burial caves to the west and the karstic burial caves to the east in the central coastal plain (van den Brink, Golan and Shemueli 2001), as well as recent excavations at Nevallat, located in the foothills near Shoham (van den Brink et al. 2001), and at Modi‘in (van den Brink, forthcoming), give us some idea of these (open-air) settlements, whose inhabitants probably had access to the nearby burial caves. Recently, several Chalcolithic dwelling caves have been excavated in the vicinity of Shoham, as at Giv‘at Oranim (Nahal Bareqet; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004; see also Chap. 1) and, further to the southeast, Horbat Tittora, close to Modi‘in (Negev and Gibson 2001:509). A direct material link reflecting shared mortuary behavior between the open-air mortuary complexes and the burial caves is the presence of fragments of two clay ossuaries uncovered in one of the grave circles (Table Exc. 1.2:H) at Mezad Aluf (Levy and Alon

1985:127, Fig. 9; Levy and Alon 1987:337–338, Figs. 13.17, 13.18). This type of ossuary is usually, although not exclusively, associated with burial caves.131In addition, stone coffins appear in some of the burial caves (see. Fig. Exc. 1.3), as well as in the open-air burial sites at Kissufim and Palmahim. The attested custom of secondary burials, some deposited in ceramic receptacles, others in individual ‘bone heaps’ (with the skull placed on top of the long bones), in both the circular stone graves at Mezad Aluf and Nahal Sekher and in the burial caves, comprises another link between the two data sets. All cave sites listed in Table Exc. 1.1, with the exception of three (Horbat Govit, Giv‘at Oranim and Wadi el-Makkukh),14 contained evidence of secondary burials in ossuaries (see Fig. Exc. 1.2). Table Exc. 1.2 lists the few Chalcolithic, ‘non-cave’ burial sites that also provided evidence of secondary burials in ossuaries.15

Table Exc. 1.2. Index of Chalcolithic ‘Non-Cave’ Sites Containing Evidence of Secondary Burials in Ceramic Ossuaries No.

Site Name

Type/Status

References

A

Megiddo

Ossuary fragment/Str. XX

Kaplan 1958:57

B

Tel Esur/Tell Asawir

Ossuary jar fragment/Str. IV (within broadroom building)

Yannai, forthcoming

C

Tell Ifshar/Tel Hefer

Ossuary fragment/pits/excavated

Porath, in press

D

Yehud

Ossuary fragment/pit/excavated

van den Brink, Golan and Shemueli 2001

E

Tel Lod

Ossuary fragments

E. Yannai, pers. comm.

F

H. Hadat (Modi‘in–Buchman)

Ossuary fragments

van den Brink, pers. comm.

G

Nahal Kissufim

Ossuaries/subterranean mortuary mudbrick structure and pits/excavated

Goren and Fabian 1994; 2002

H

Mezad Aluf

Ossuaries/circular grave/excavated

Levy and Alon 1979; 1985:131, Fig. 9; 1987:337–338, Figs. 13.17, 13.18

EXCURSUS 1

Fig. Exc. 1.2. Distribution map of Late Chalcolithic burial sites containing ceramic ossuaries (see Tables Exc. 1.1, Exc. 1.2 for references to sites).

179

180

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Disposal of the Dead The mode of disposal of the dead in the caves, as already mentioned, was almost always secondary burial.16 The dead were either deposited without any apparent ‘bone-container’17 in individual piles of long bones topped by the skulls; placed in ceramic ‘domiform’ or ‘house-shaped’ rectangular ossuaries with flat bases or, more rarely, supported by ‘legs’18 (in rare instances ‘animal shaped’, for example at Peqi‘in and Azor); less frequently in clay ossuary jars,19 large, deep bowls, open basins with or without a spout20 or in rectangular, sometimes oval (i.e., with rounded corners) open, clay coffins;21 or, finally, even less frequently, in rectangular or oval-shaped stone (kurkar or limestone) coffins (Fig. Exc. 1.3). Whereas the clay ossuaries usually served as receptacles for single, secondary burials, the heavy stone coffins (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:28, Classe I) always contained multiple secondary burials, as, for instance, in Ben Shemen T516 (two limestone coffins; Perrot and Ladiray 1980:68–69; Pl. 20), Palmahim (two kurkar coffins found in burial-cave contexts [Gophna, pers. comm.] and eight kurkar coffins [some still sealed by lids] found in open-air funerary structures [Gorzalzcany, pers. comm.]), Kissufim (four kurkar coffins; Goren and Fabian 2002:47), Bené Beraq (one kurkar coffin; Ory 1946: Fig. 5), Qula (two limestone coffins and two lids; Milevski, forthcoming: Fig. 16) and Giv‘atayim (two limestone coffins in a kurkar cave; Sussman and Ben-Arieh 1966). At the latter site the stone ossuaries were found covered with flat stone slabs. For a typological exposition of the various rectangular, closed or closable clay ossuaries, ossuary jars and coffins, often found side by side, see Perrot and Ladiray (1980; for additional, new [sub]types, see Porath 1991; Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997, 1999; Yannai and Porath, forthcoming). Based on a wealth of new data, deriving foremost from Peqi‘in (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1999), the current author intuitively perceives a sequential development of the rectangular clay ossuaries, as follows: 1. Ossuaries consisting of a rectangular box with a flat base (less frequently with four or six legs) and a fitted, string-cut gabled lid decorated with anthropomorphic (or, sporadically, zoomorphic) features such as sculpted human heads or applied and/or painted parts thereof (nose, eyes, mouth, coiffeur), sculpted female breasts, arms and hands.

2. Ossuaries made and fired as a single unit, “usually with four or six, and very occasionally eight legs” (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:148; for an example with eight legs see also Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Figs. 34–35), the aperture (for accommodating the skull and other postcranial remains) located either in the front or the back short side of the receptacle. 3. Single-unit ossuaries, usually flat based, with the aperture invariably located in the front short side (façade). Many ossuaries of this group display applied bands of indented ‘rope’ decoration in the upper reaches along the two long sides of the receptacle. Often located in the border zone where earlier the string-cut gabled roof/lid would have fit the receptacle, these applied bands perhaps reflect and accentuate the earlier custom of separating the roof from the actual box. The various bone containers were placed preferably alongside the wall(s) of the cave, not immediately on the cave floor but on stone slabs, apparently providing a more level surface. Sometimes particular areas in the caves were stone lined and stone paved for this purpose. In Bené Beraq a cave floor was paved with kurkar slabs (Ory 1946:45) and its walls stone lined. Kaplan (1963:301), working in the same general area in Bené Beraq, also mentions “under most of the [ossuary] groups was a small paved area of kurkar slabs or small stones”. In Giv‘atayim “…ossuaries...stood on stone slabs along the wall of the cave” (Sussman and BenArieh 1966). The latter case also applies to Shoham (N), Cave 1, L122 (see above, Chapter 4) and Sha‘ar Efrayim, Cave 2 (van den Brink 2005a). Funerary Assemblages Examination of the funerary assemblages (pottery and otherwise) associated with these secondary, multiple or collective burials found in the caves, clearly indicates that the repertoire of funerary gifts is well defined and standardized. Below are presented the various classes of funerary gifts which appear in many, but not all, burial caves. Pottery Vessels22 These include open bowls with straight, flaring walls, in literature frequently referred to as ‘V-shaped’ bowls, in varying sizes (the larger ones sometimes containing human bones), basins (with or without a spout), fenestrated pedestal bowls, various types of holemouth and short-necked jars, small jars with ‘pinched’ rims,

EXCURSUS 1

181

Fig. Exc. 1.3. Distribution map of Late Chalcolithic burial sites containing stone coffins, basalt vessels, stone palettes, copper items, flint tools and gold (see Tables Exc. 1.1, Exc. 1.2 for references to sites).

churns (large and small) and, infrequently, cornets. Spoons, known from contemporary dwelling contexts, are absent from burial assemblages (see Gilead 1995:181). Groundstone Vessels (Fig. Exc. 1.3) Frequently found in the burial caves are basalt or, less commonly, phosphorite vessels. The most common

shapes are the flat-based ‘V-shaped’ bowl and the fenestrated pedestal bowl, the rims and legs of which sometimes bear fine incised patterns (van den Brink et al. 1999; see also Commenge, in press[b]). Less frequent are ground limestone vessels (see e.g., Gilead 1995:321–326; Rowan, this volume).23 Burial sites where basalt vessels have been found include Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 77:1–3),

182

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Palmahim (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980: Fig. 4:10), Peqi‘in (van den Brink, Rowan and Braun 1999:177– 178; Fig. 9), Qurnat Haramiya (Mizpe Afek; H. Torge, pers. comm.; van den Brink, in press), Giv‘at Oranim (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004), Shoham (N) (above, Chap. 9), Nahal Qana Cave (“101 basalt vessels”; Gopher and Tsuk 1996:109; Figs. 4.14–4.16), Umm Qatafa Cave (Perrot 1992:104*; Fig. 4: Nos. 2, 3 ) and Yehud (van den Brink, Golan and Shemueli 2001:29; Fig. 4). Flint Tools Small quantities of flint tools have been found in association with some of these burial sites (Fig. Exc. 1.3). Perforated flint disks (Epstein and Noy 1988; Noy 1998:277–283) have been discovered in burial contexts at Peqi‘in (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:151; Fig. 8), Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996:109; Fig. 4.13) and possibly at Bené Beraq (Ory 1946:54, No. 15: “scraper (?), broken; with retouched circular hole in middle”); similar perforated flint disks have also been found in domestic contexts, as at Tel Te’o (Gopher and Rosen 2001:54, 58; Fig. 4.17:1). Tabular flint scrapers in explicit burial contexts have been recovered at Mezad Aluf (Levy and Alon 1987) and Horbat Castra (van den Brink 2000a; van den Brink et al. 2004). Other types of flint tools have been reported from burial caves at Palmahim (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980:8; Fig. 4:13, 14), Shoham (N) (above, Chap. 10), Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:64), Peqi‘in (Wolff 1996:729) and Horbat Govit (van den Brink 2000b). Varia Less frequently encountered categories of finds in Late Chalcolithic burial contexts include: Stone Palettes (Fig. Exc. 1.3). Palettes recovered in burial contexts include those excavated at Horbat Castra (van den Brink 2000a), Shoham (North) (above, Chap. 9), Palmahim (unpublished; on display in the Museum of Palmahim) and Kissufim (Goren and Fabian 2002:48; Fig. 6.6). Palettes found in contemporary settlement contexts include those from Gilat (12 items; Alon 1990), Shiqmim (Levy and Alon 1993:1372), Horbat Beter (Dothan 1959:19; Pl. VII:3), Bir es-Safadi (de Miroschedji 1992:93, n. 19) and Wadi Ghazzeh, Site A (Macdonald 1932:11). For a discussion of a possible Egyptian influence concerning this type of artifact, see Watrin 1995:45–49.

‘Violin-Shaped’ Figurines. At Peqi‘in, about ten violin-shaped figurines of bone and stone were found, one displaying breasts (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:152; Fig. 10), similar to a figurine from a (nonburial) context at Gilat (Alon and Levy 1994:167; see also Commenge, in press[a]). (Arsenical) Copper Objects (Fig. Exc. 1.3). These comprise maceheads, standards, ‘crowns’ and chisels displaying clear affinities to the ‘treasure’ of Nahal Mishmar Cave (Bar-Adon 1980). Burial sites where such items were found include Palmahim (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980: Pl. 1:5), Peqi‘in (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:151; Fig. 7), Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996:114ff.), Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 75:17) and Giv‘at Oranim (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999). Copper objects were uncovered in Chalcolithic dwelling contexts in the vicinity of Shoham (N) (Gophna and Feldstein 1998:73; Fig. 133). At Giv‘at Oranim two small hoards including hematite and copper maceheads, a few copper adzes and axes and a copper standard were related to those from the Nahal Mishmar Cave (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999:49*). Recent excavations at Modi‘in–Buchman yielded two Chalcolithic copper adzes, hidden in a small bedrock crevice on a hill slope covered with many rock-cut installations, associable with a nearby Late Chalcolithic–early EB I settlement at the same site.24 Hematite Maceheads (Fig. Exc. 1.4). Hematite maceheads have been found in burial contexts at Azor (Perrot and Ladiray 1980: Fig. 77:4), Bené Beraq (Kaplan 1963: Fig. 9:14; Pl. 34:B), Peqi‘in (Z. Gal, pers. comm.), Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996:109ff.; Figs. 4.17, 4.18) and Giv‘at Oranim (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999). Six hematite maceheads were among the items from the Nahal Mishmar Cave (BarAdon 1980: Nos. 185–190). A small group of hematite (and copper) maceheads was recently uncovered in a Chalcolithic dwelling cave at Giv‘at Oranim (Oren and Scheftelowitz 1998) and two broken hematite maceheads were found out of context at Shoham by Nadelman (1995). Another broken specimen was retrieved from a settlement context by the author at Modi‘in–Buchman. See also Sebanne 1997. Ivory Statuettes. The head of a small ivory figurine was recovered in a burial context at Peqi‘in (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:152; Fig. 9).25 Stone Stelae (Fig. Exc. 1.4). On the basis of six stelae uncovered in burial contexts at Giv‘atayim, the

EXCURSUS 1

183

Fig. Exc. 1.4. Distribution map of Late Chalcolithic burial sites containing hematite maceheads, stelae, pendants/tokens and shells (see Tables Exc. 1.1, Exc. 1.2 for references to sites).

excavators (Sussman and Ben-Arieh 1966: Fig. 7) were able to divide the stone slabs into two groups: those which have a flat base and those which have a pointed base. One of the six stelae was decorated with red paint. Other burial sites where stelae have been found include Azor (kurkar; Perrot and Ladiray 1980:77:5), Bené Beraq (reddish limestone; Kaplan 1963:302; Pl. 32B), Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:76, Figs. 117, 134:3), Shoham (N) (limestone; van den

Brink and Gophna 1998:91; Fig. 132 on p. 108*; see also above, Chap. 9), Kissufim (limestone; Goren and Fabian 2002:44–46) and Shiqmim (Alon and Levy 1989:182–184). Two limestone stelae were recovered in 2004 by the author at Modi‘in–Buchman. One of them, very similar in shape and size to those from Shoham (N), was found in front of the entrance to an early EB I curvilinear enclosure wall. This stele was most likely extracted by the EB I inhabitants from an

184

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

earlier, Late Chalcolithic broadroom building located below the enclosure wall. Pendants or Tokens (Plain or Incised) (Fig. Exc. 1.4). Burial sites that have yielded pendants or tokens made of ivory, bone, shell and stone include Bené Beraq (incised shell; Kaplan 1963: Fig. 4:15), Kissufim (incised shell; Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002), Palmahim (reddish limestone; Gophna and Lifshitz 1980: Fig. 4:12; Pl. I:6) and Shoham (N) (stone; above, Chap. 9) Small Ornaments. These include objects of various materials, including bone, shell or stone. Animal Bones or Shells. Rare examples indicating meat and fish offerings (Fig. Exc. 1.4) are known from Ben Shemen (Perrot and Ladiray 1980), Shoham (N) (above, Chap. 13) and Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996: Pl. XI). Unique Items Some caves contained unique items which only appeared once in a specific cave, for example threedimensionally sculpted human heads crowning some of the clay ossuaries from Peqi‘in (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997:15; Fig. 11); a composite, pedestaled ceramic bowl (Agelarakis et al. 1998: Fig. 4) and ‘chest-shaped ossuaries with decorated fronton’ from Ma‘abarot (Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985; Porath, in press); a female clay figurine found in Cave 5 at Sha‘ar Efrayim (van den Brink 2005a); electrum and gold items and copper wires from Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996) and Giv‘atayim (Kornfeld, pers. comm.); a clay figurine of a fertility god uncovered in a clay ossuary from Qula (Milevski 2001b:62*; Fig. 133; 2002); a hybrid form between an ossuary jar and a domiform ossuary mentioned above (unpublished; on display at the Bet Miriam Museum in Kibbutz Palmahim); a bird figurine carved in bone and basket-handled pottery from Kissufim (see Goren and Fabian 2002) and two bird-shaped pottery vessels from Palmahim (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980:4 ff., Figs. 5, 6, Pl. II).

CONCLUSIONS Disposal of the dead by means of secondary burials (single as well as multiple) in ceramic and stone ossuaries, is one of the main characteristics of Chalcolithic mortuary behaviour.26 Depending on local topography, the ossuaries were deposited either in small caves artificially quarried into the kurkar

ridges or in natural, karstic caves, sometimes adapted to human needs (Fig. Exc. 1.1). The internal, spatial arrangements within the better-preserved burial caves and the distribution of the ossuaries and their associated funerary gifts suggest that not only did these caves serve as depositories for multiple reburials through time, but they possibly also functioned as mortuary cult places, perhaps active during the actual time of reburial and/or on other occasions. Nearly 40 burial-cave sites containing secondary burials in ceramic ossuaries are attested to, some consisting of a single burial cave, others of up to a dozen or more. They extend from Peqi‘in, Upper Galilee, in the north to Nahal Mishmar, the Judean Desert, in the south, and from Tell el-Far‘ah (N) in the east to Tel Aviv on the coastal plain in the west (Fig. Exc. 1.2). The majority of these caves is located between the Yarqon and Ayyalon Rivers in the central coastal plain and the foothills to the east. The relatively high density of burial caves revealed between these two perennial rivers is probably due in part to the recent intensification of land use, mainly for the construction of new roads and towns and for the expansion of existing towns and cities within the greater Tel Aviv area. By the same token it is not surprising that the distribution maps of specific mortuary paraphernalia attested to in these burials caves (Figs. Exc. 1.3, Exc. 1.4), also appear to cluster between the Yarqon and Ayyalon Rivers. In the area of the southern coastal plain and the foothills south of Nahal Soreq, Chalcolithic burial caves appear to be absent—or at least have not yet been found. Palmahim is the southernmost excavated site with evidence of Chalcolithic burial caves. Considering the direct link between the presence of Chalcolithic dwelling sites and contemporary burial sites (see Chap. 16), and given the existence of numerous Chalcolithic dwelling sites in the more southerly regions, it has to be assumed that related burial sites are underrepresented here, still awaiting future identification. Notably, even though kurkar ridges do extend further to the south of Palmahim all the way to Gaza, the known burial sites in this region do not consist of burial caves, but of openair burial grounds (Kissufim and Nahal Sekher 112). Regional as well as chronological differences between the various Chalcolithic assemblages have been noted in the past, specifically with respect to settlement sites found, for example, in the Golan Heights, the Hula Valley, the Jordan Valley, the coastal plain and the Be’er Sheva‘ Valley. A synthesis of expressions

EXCURSUS 1

of regionalism in the realm of Chalcolithic mortuary behaviour is certainly desirable, but beyond the scope of the present excavation report. May it suffice here to conclude that the practice of reburying the dead in ceramic and stone repositories in both artificially

185

quarried and natural caves during the Chalcolithic period is a widespread, supra-regional phenomenon that is more or less contained, circumstantially, within the present boundaries of the country.

NOTES 1

Some of the tumuli at Adeimeh contain only fireplaces, while others have one or more cists, sometimes in association with a fireplace (Stekelis 1935). 2 These structures, always containing secondary burials, have been compared by Levy and Alon (1985) to the nawamis found in southeastern Sinai (Bar Yosef et al. 1977; 1986), based, for example, on the large shell (Lambis truncata) bracelets found in both. 3 Each cist structure contained at least one V-shaped bowl. Although the cists are large enough to hold an extended single burial, no human bones were found inside them. 4 The earliest (collective) secondary burials in Israel were uncovered in Natufian context, in the upper levels of Mallaha (Perrot, Ladiray and Soliveres-Massel 1988). 5 For a number of early cist structures in the southeastern plain of the Dead Sea (Bir es-Safi, Bab edh-Dhra, Numeirah and Khanazir), all dated, however, to the Early Bronze Age, see Rast and Schaub 1974:7, 8, 13. 6 The earliest intentional primary burials in Israel were found in dwelling caves dating back to the Mousterian period (van der Meersch 1972). 7 These are lithified coastal sand dunes (eolianite sandstone). See for example Gifford and Rapp 1989. 8 For a description of the geological processes involved see above, Chap. 2. See also Horowitz 1979; Frumkin 1993. 9 For an overview of the burial data deriving from Chalcolithic burial caves up to 1979 see Perrot and Ladiray 1980; an update of relevant data was presented in van den Brink 1998. A further update (through 2004) is presented here in Tables Exc. 1.1, Exc. 1.2. 10 That the Ben Shemen caves are natural, karstic caves is contra Perrot and Ladiray (1980:59–60), who hold the opinion that they were artificially hewn (cruessés). 11 Nahal Qana Cave, first used during the Neolithic period (Gopher and Tsuk 1996), provides an example of the re-use of a cave during the Chalcolithic period for burial practices. Peqi‘in Cave, first used for dwelling purposes during an early phase of the Chalcolithic (H. Smithline, pers. comm.), provides another example of the same phenomenon. 12 For example, Palmahim Tomb 2 (Gophna 1968), Giv‘atayim Tomb 1 (Kaplan 1963; I. Kornfeld, pers. comm.), Ben Shemen Tomb 510 (Perrot and Ladiray 1980), Shoham (N) Caves 1–4 (this volume), Mazor (West) (Milevski, pers. comm.), Nahal Qana Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996), and

Cave 1 at Sha‘ar Efrayim (van den Brink 2005a) were all re-used during the Early Bronze Age or later periods. 13 For other sites, besides Mezad Aluf, where Chalcolithic clay ossuaries were found in ‘non-burial cave’ contexts, see Table Exc. 1.2. 14 All three cases were cave or cave-like contexts with primary burials (see Schick 1998; Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999; van den Brink 2000b). The presence of a few ceramic ossuary fragments at the site of Giv‘at Oranim (Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004) indicates that secondary burials were also practiced at this site. 15 This is an updated version of van den Brink 1998: Fig. 1; Tables 1, 2. 16 Primary burials during the Chalcolithic period are known for example in the Nahal Mishmar Cave (Bar-Adon 1980), Cave No. 13 in Wadi el-Makkukh (the Cave of the Warrior; see Schick 1998), Horbat Govit (van den Brink 2000b) and at Giv‘at Oranim (Nahal Bareqet; Oren and Scheftelowitz 1999). Primary burials in settlement contexts in the Chalcolithic were found at Shiqmim (Levy 1987; Levy et al. 1991), Gilat (Y. Rowan, pers. comm.), Abu Matar, Bir es-Safadi (Perrot 1968), Grar (Gilead 1995:59, 60, 76, 94), Tuleilat Ghassul (Mallon, Köppel and Neuville 1934:40), Tel Kitan (Eisenberg 1993) and Tel Te’o Strata VII–VI (Eisenberg 1989:35; Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001:27–46). Secondary burials in (subterranean) dwelling contexts are attested in Bir es-Safadi, Tomb 665 (Perrot 1968). 17 Either none, or a possible organic (now decayed) material like basketry. In Ma‘abarot, for instance, 21 such burials (‘bone heaps’) were uncovered (Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985; Agelarakis et al. 1998; Porath, in press). See also Peqi‘in (Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997; 1999). 18 For various interpretations as to what these rectangular ossuaries represent, see e.g., Mastin 1965; Ayalon 1977; BarYosef and Ayalon 2001. 19 The closed type of ossuary jar can have certain characteristics ‘borrowed’ from the rectangular, domiform ossuaries (Perrot and Ladiray 1980:36–37, Classe III). For an extreme hybrid example see the specimen kept at present in the Bet Miriam Museum at Kibbutz Palmahim. The use of large holemouth jars as bone containers is attested, for example, at Shoham (N), Cave 1, L122 (above, Chap. 4). 20 At Ma‘abarot, fourteen basin ossuaries were uncovered (Porath, Dar and Applebaum 1985; Porath, in press).

186

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

21

Rectangular, open clay ossuaries have been found at Hadera (Sukenik 1937:19–20, Figs. 2, 3), Taiyiba (painted; Porath 1991) and Sha‘ar Efrayim (van den Brink 2005a). At Ma‘abarot several ‘chest-shaped’ ossuaries were retrieved. Rectangular in shape, one or both of the short sides could be elongated to form a kind of façade, usually decorated. Although no lids were recovered, these open ossuaries could originally have been closed by some kind of cover, as was noticed in the case of the clay ossuary at Shechem (Klamer 1977). At Peqi‘in (Wolff 1996:728; Gal, Smithline and Shalem 1997) and Horbat Castra (van den Brink 2000a) open rectangular clay boxes, sometimes with horizontal handles or a series of holes along the edges, and covered with curved, string-cut, roof-like lids, are not infrequent and constitute an additional variant of a common theme. 22 For a general treatment of the significance of ceramic assemblages in Chalcolithic burial contexts, see Epstein 2001. 23 For a general discussion of Chalcolithic basalt vessels, see Amiran and Porat 1984; Rowan 1998; van den Brink, Rowan and Braun 1999. For the distinctions between basalt and phosphorite vessels, and a discussion of phosphorite vessels and their distribution (mainly over the central-southern part of Israel, including the burial-cave sites at Palmahim, Gezer and Umm Qatafa), see Gilead and Goren 1989 and Goren

1991. For Chalcolithic basalt vessels from Jordan, see Phillip and Williams-Thorpe 1993. Although not recovered in direct association with Chalcolithic burial contexts, another category of basalt items, the Golanite ‘pillar-figurines’ (Epstein 1975; 1988; 1998:230–233), should be mentioned, due to their assumed connection with ancestor cult (Gera 1986). For Chalcolithic basalt animal statuettes (a bull and a ram) see Ibrahim and Mittmann 1998. For two new subtypes of basalt fenestrated pedestal bowls found mainly in burial contexts, see van den Brink, Rowan and Braun 1999. 24 For a general discussion of the development of metallurgy in the southern Levant during the Chalcolithic (and Early Bronze Age), see Ilan and Sebanne 1989; Levy and Shalev 1989; Shalev 1991, 1994; Tadmor et al. 1995. 25 For a general discussion of Chalcolithic ivory statuettes, see Perrot 1959; 1964. 26 This does not preclude the custom of either single, double or multiple primary burials which were practiced during the same period, albeit in significantly lower numbers. Primary burials are usually located within habitation areas, as at Giv‘at Oranim (Scheftelowitz and Oren 2004:28–33), Bir esSafadi (Perrot 1958) and Shiqmim village (Levy and Alon 1987:177–178), and only rarely in burial caves, e.g., Horbat Govit (van den Brink and Commenge, forthcoming).

REFERENCES Agelarakis A.P., Paley S., Porath Y. and Winick J. 1998. The Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Ma‘avarot, Israel, and Its Palaeoanthropological Implications. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8:431–443. Alon D. 1990. Cult Artifacts from Gilat and Relations with Northern Edom in the Chalcolithic Period. ‘Atiqot 10:1–12 (Hebrew; English Summary, p. 1*). Alon D. and Levy T.E. 1989. The Archaeology of Cult and the Chalcolithic Sanctuary of Gilat. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2:163–221. Alon D. and Levy T.E. 1994. Violin Figurines and Cult in Chalcolithic Gilat. Ariel 100–101:166–171. Amiran R. and Porat N. 1984. The Basalt Vessels of the Chalcolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age I. Tel Aviv 11:11–19. Ayalon E. 1977. Ossuaries and Architecture in Eretz-Israel during the Chalcolithic Period (Unpublished seminar manuscript). Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Ayalon E. 1995a. Ancient Yavne and Its Port. In S. Aharoni and M. Aharoni eds. People and Accomplishments in Rishon LeZion. Rehovot, Nes Ziona and the Surroundings. Kefar Sava. Pp. 20–23 (Hebrew). Ayalon E. 1995b. Archaeological Finds in Rehovot, Rishon Le-Zion and Nes Ziona. In S. Aharoni and M. Aharoni eds.

People and Accomplishments in Rishon Le-Zion. Rehovot, Nes Ziona and the Surroundings. Kefar Sava. Pp. 14–20 (Hebrew). Ayalon E., Neidlinger W. and Mattews E. 1989/90. Horvat Migdal. ESI 9:137–138. Bar-Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef O. and Ayalon E. 2001. Chalcolithic Ossuaries — What Do They Imitate and Why? Qadmoniot 34:34–43 (Hebrew). Bar-Yosef O., Belfer A., Goren A. and Smith P. 1977. The Nawamis near Ein Huderah Eastern Sinai. IEJ 27:65–88. Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A., Goren A., Hershkovitz I., Ilan O., Mienis H.K. and Sass B. 1986. Nawamis and Habitation Sites near Gebel Gunna, Southern Sinai. IEJ 36:121–167. Bar-Yosef Mayer D. 2002. The Shell Pendants. In Y. Goren and P. Fabian. Kissufim Road. A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site (IAA Reports 16). Jerusalem. Pp. 49–52. Ben-Tor A. 1993. Azor. NEAEHL 1:125–127. Brandl B. 1982. A Chalcolithic Ossuary and Egyptian Pre- and Protodynastic Finds from the Macalister Excavations at Gezer (Abstracts of the Ninth Archaeological Conference in Israel). Jerusalem. P. 5.

EXCURSUS 1

Brink E.C.M. van den. 1998. An Index to Chalcolithic Mortuary Caves in Israel. IEJ 48:165–173. Brink E.C.M. van den. 2000a. Horbat Castra. HA–ESI 111: 17*–18*. Brink E.C.M. van den. 2000b. Horbat Govit. HA–ESI 112:117*. Brink E.C.M. van den. 2005a. Sha‘ar Efrayim. HA–ESI. 117. www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=170& mag_id=110 (accessed November, 2005). Brink E.C.M. van den. 2005b. Shoham (Northeast). HA–ESI 117.hwww.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id= 153&mag_id=110 (accessed November, 2005). Brink E.C.M. van den. Forthcoming. Modi‘in–Buchman (Southeast Precinct). HA–ESI. Brink E.C.M van den. In press. Notes and News. A Chalcolithic Basalt Bowl from Mitzpe Aphek. IEJ. Brink E.C.M van den and Commenge C. Forthcoming. A Late Chalcolithic Burial near Horbat Govit in the Lower Galilee. ‘Atiqot. Brink E.C.M. van den and Gophna R. 1997. Shoham (North). ESI 16:84–85. Brink E.C.M. van den and Gophna R. 1998. Shoham (North). ESI 18:71. Brink E.C.M van den, Golan S. and Shemueli O. 2001. A Note on the Archaeological Investigations at Yehud and Some Chalcolithic Finds. ‘Atiqot 42:25–34. Brink E.C.M. van den, Horwitz L.K., Khalaily H., Liphschitz A., Mienis H.K. and Nagar Y. 2004. A Chalcolithic Dwelling and Burial Cave at Horbat Castra, Haifa (South), Carmel Mnt., Israel. IEJ 54:129–153. Brink E.C.M. van den, Liphschitz N., Lazar D. and Bonani G. 2001. Chalcolithic Dwelling Remains, Cup Marks and Olive (Olea europaea) Stones at Nevallat. IEJ 51:36–43. Brink E.C.M. van den, Rowan Y.M. and Braun E. 1999. Pedestalled Basalt Bowls of the Chalcolithic: New Variations. IEJ 49:161–183. Callaway J.A. 1963. Burials in Ancient Palestine: From the Stone Age to Abraham. BA 26:74–91. Commenge C. In press(a). Gilat’s Figurines: Exploring the Social and Symbolic Dimensions of Representation. In T.E. Levy ed. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology). London. Commenge C. In press(b). Le mobilier en pierre des sites de Beersheva, Neguev septentrional, Israël (Cahiers du centre de recherches français de Jerusaelm 9). Paris. Dothan M. 1959. Excavations at Horvat-Beter (Beersheva). ‘Atiqot (ES) 2:1–71. Druks A. and Tzaferis V. 1970. Tel Azor. RB 77:578. Eisenberg E. 1989. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I Occupations at Tel Teo. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 29–40. Eisenberg E. 1993. Kitan, Tel. NEAEHL 3:878–881. Eisenberg E., Gopher A. and Greenberg R. 2001. Tel Te’o. A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem.

187

Epstein C. 1975. Basalt Pillar Figurines from the Golan. IEJ 25:193–201. Epstein C. 1988. Basalt Pillar Figurines from the Golan and the Huleh Regions. IEJ 38:205–223. Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Epstein C. 2001. The Significance of Ceramic Assemblages in Chalcolithic Burial Contexts in Israel and Neighboring Regions in the Southern Levant. Levant 33:81–94. Epstein C. and Noy T. 1988. Observations Concerning Perforated Flint Tools from Chalcolithic Palestine. Paléorient 14:133–141. Frumkin A. 1993. Karst Origin of the Upper Erosion Surface in the Northern Judean Mountains, Israel. Journal of Earth Sciences 41:169–176. Frumkin A. 1996. Geology and Speleology of the Cave System. In A. Gopher and T. Tsuk eds. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 12). Tel Aviv. Pp. 39–146. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1997. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave in Peqi‘in, Upper Galilee. IEJ 47:145–154. Gal Z., Smithline H. and Shalem D. 1999. New Iconographic Aspects of Chalcolithic Art. Preliminary Observations on Finds from the Peqi‘in Cave. ‘Atiqot 37:1*–16*. Gera A. 1986. The Basalt Sculptures of the Golan and Their Role in the Culture of the Late Chalcolithic Period in EretzIsrael. M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gifford J.A. and Rapp G. Jr. 1989. Paleography of the Central Sharon Coast. In Z. Herzog, G. Rapp, Jr. and O. Negbi eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 8). Tel Aviv. Pp. 203–208. Gilead I. 1995. Grar. A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev (Beer-Sheva 7). Be’er Sheva‘. Gilead I. and Goren Y. 1989. Petrographic Analysis of Fourth Millennium B.C. Pottery and Stone Vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. BASOR 275: 5–14. Gopher A. and Rosen S.A. 2001. Lithics of Strata XIII–III, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic–Early Bronze Age. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg eds. Tel Te’o, A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem. Pp. 49–82. Gopher A. and Tsuk T. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 12). Tel Aviv. Gophna R.1968. Notes and News: Palmahim. IEJ 18:132–133. Gophna R.1989. From Village to Town in the Lod Valley: A Case Study. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 97–107. Gophna R. In preparation. Chalcolithic Burial Caves at Palmahim (IAA Reports). Gophna R. and Beit-Arieh I. 1997. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Lod (80). Jerusalem.

188

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

Gophna R. and Feldstein A. 1998. Shoham (South). ESI 18: 72–73. Gophna R. and Lifshitz S. 1980. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot 14 (ES):1–8. Gophna R. and Portugali Y. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 269:11–36. Gophna R. and Tsuk T. 1990. Chalcolithic Settlements in Western Samaria. EI 21:111–118 (Hebrew; English summary). Goren Y. 1991. Phosphorite Vessels of the 4th Millennium B.C. in the Southern Levant: New Data, New Interpretations. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24:102–111. Goren Y. and Fabian P. 1994. Kissufim Road. ESI 12:90–91. Goren Y. and Fabian P. 2002. Kissufim Road. A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site (IAA Reports 16). Jerusalem. HA 1976. A Tomb near Shechem (Tel Balata). HA 59/60: 23–24. Horowitz A. 1979. The Quaternary of Israel. New York. Ibrahim M.M. and Mittmann S. 1998. Eine chalkolitische Stierskulptur aus Nordjordanien. ZDPV 114:101–105. Ilan O. and Sebbane M. 1989. Copper Metallurgy, Trade and the Urbanisation of Southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. In P. de Miroschedji ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles (BAR Int. S. 527). Oxford. Pp. 139–162. Kaplan J. 1958. The Chalcolithic and Neolithic Settlements in Tel-Aviv and Neighborhood. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. Kaplan J. 1961. The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv–Jaffa. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Kaplan J. 1963. Excavations at Benei Braq 1951. IEJ 13: 300–312. Kaplan H. 1972. Tel Aviv Exhibition Grounds. Museum Haaretz Bulletin 14:13–16. Kaplan J. 1993a. Bene Brak. NEAEHL 1:186–187. Kaplan J.1993b. Giva‘tayim. NEAEHL 1:520–521. Kaplan J. and Ritter-Kaplan H. 1993. Tel Aviv. NEAEHL 4:1451–1457. Klamer C. 1977. A Burial Cave near Nablus (Tel Balata). IEJ 27:48. Klamer C. 1981. A Burial Cave of the Late Bronze Age near Shechem. Qadmoniot 14:30–34 (Hebrew). Lass E. 1998. Horbat Hani (West). ESI 18:66. Lass E. 2003. An Early Bronze Age IB Burial Cave and Byzantine Farm at Horbat Hani (Khirbet Burj-Haniya) (West). ‘Atiqot 44:1–51. Le Mort F. and Rabinovich R. 1994. L’aport de l’étude taphonomique des restes humains à la connaissance des pratiques funèraires: exemple du site chalcolithique de Ben Shemen (Israël). Paléorient 20:69–98. Levy T.E. 1987. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984) (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Levy T.E. 1995. Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies— Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4500–3500 BCE). In T.E. Levy ed.

The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Pp. 226–244. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1979. A Preliminary Note on the Chalcolithic Cemeteries at Shiqmim, Northern Negev, Israel. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 16:109–117. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1985. The Chalcolithic Mortuary Site near Mesad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert: Third Preliminary Report, 1982 Season. BASOR Supplement 23:121–135. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1987. Excavations in Shiqmim Cemetery 3: Final Report on the 1982 Excavations. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984) (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 333–355. Levy T.E. and Alon D. 1993. Shiqmim. NEAEHL 4:1370– 1372. Levy T.E. and Shalev S. 1989. Prehistoric Metalworking in the Southern Levant: Archaeometallurgical and Social Perspectives. World Archaeology 20:353–372. Levy T.E., Alon D., Grigson C., Holl A., Goldberg P., Rowan Y. and Smith P. 1991. Subterranean Settlement in the Negev Desert, ca. 4500–3700 B.C. Research and Exploration 7:394–413. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer. 1902–1905 and 1907–1909 III. London. MacDonald E. 1932. Beth Pelet II: Prehistoric Fara. London. Mallon A., Köppel R. and Neuville R. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I: Compte rendu des fouilles de l’Institut Biblique Pontifical 1929–1932. Rome. Mastin B.A. 1965. Chalcolithic Ossuaries and ‘Houses for the Dead’. PEQ 97:153–160. Meersch B. van der. 1972. Ce que révèlent les sépultures moustériennes de Qafzeh en Israël. Archéologia 45:6–15. Milevski I. 2001a. Qula, Area J. HA–ESI 113:63*. Milevski I. 2001b. Qula, Area K. HA–ESI 113:62*–63*. Milevski I. 2002. A New Fertility Figurine and New Animal Motifs from the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant: Finds from Cave K-1 at Quleh, Israel. Paléorient 28:133–142. Milevski I. Forthcoming. Excavations at Qula (West). ‘Atiqot. Milevski I. and Shevo E. 1999. Qula (West) 1997. HA–ESI 110:39*–41*. Miroschedji P. de 1992. Une palette égyptienne prédynastique du sud de la plaine cotière d’Israel. EI 23:90–94. Miroschedji P. de 1993. Far‘ah, Tell el- (North). NEAEHL 2:432–438. Miroschedji P. de 2000. Les sepultures hypogées au Levant des IVe–IIe millénaires. In E. Contu ed. L’ipogeismo nel mediterraneo. Origini, sviluppo, quadri culturali. Atti del congresso internazionale Sassari-Oristano 23–28 Maggio 1994 I. Sassari. Pp. 24–82. Nadelman Y. 1995. Shoham. ESI 14:80–81. Negev A. and Gibson S. 2001. Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York–London. Noy T. 1998. Flint Artifacts. In C. Epstein. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Pp. 269– 332. Oren R. and Scheftelowitz N. 1998. The Tel Te‘enim and Sha‘ar Ephraim Project. Tel Aviv 25:52–93.

EXCURSUS 1

Oren R. and Scheftelowitz N. 1999. Giv‘at Oranim (Nahal Bareqet) HA–ESI 110: 48*–50*. Ory J. 1946. A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Benei Beraq. QDAP 12:43–57. Paley S.M. and Porath Y. 1979. The Regional Project in ‘Emeq Hefer, 1979. IEJ 29:236–239. Perrot J. 1958. Beersheba (Safadi). RB 65:249–267. Perrot J. 1959. Statuettes en ivoire et autres objets en ivoire et en os provenant des gisements préhistoriques de la région de Beershéba. Syria 36:8–19. Perrot J. 1961. Une tombe à ossuaire du IVe millénaire à ‘Azor près de Tel Aviv. Rapport préliminaire. ‘Atiqot 3:1–83. Perrot J. 1964. Les ivoires de la 7e campagne de fouilles à Safadi près de Beershéva. EI 7:92*–93*. Perrot J. 1967. Les ossuaries de Ben Shemen. EI 8:46*–49*. Perrot J. 1968. La préhistoire palestienne. Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 8. Paris. Pp. 286–446. Perrot J. 1992. Umm Qatafa and Umm Qala’a: Two ‘Ghassulian’ Caves in the Judean Desert. EI 23:100*–111*. Perrot J. and Ladiray D. 1980. Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IV e millènaire avant l’ère chrétienne (Mémoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jérusalem 1). Paris. Perrot J., Ladiray D. and Soliveres-Massel O. 1988. Les hommes de Mallaha (Eynan), Israël (Memoires et travaux du centre de recherches préhistoriques français de Jerusalem 7). Paris. Phillip G. and Williams-Thorpe O. 1993. A Provenance Study of Jordanian Basalt Vessels of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Periods. Paléorient 19:51– 63. Porath Y. 1991. Taiyiba, Burial Cave. ESI 9:44–45. Porath Y. In press. Chalcolithic Cemeteries at Ma‘abarot and Tel Ifshar. ‘Atiqot. Porath Y., Dar S. and Applebaum S. 1985. The History and Archaeology of Emek-Hefer. Tel Aviv. Pp. 185–192 (Hebrew). Rast W.E. and Schaub R.T. 1974. Survey of the Southeastern Plain of the Dead Sea, 1973. ADAJ 19:5–53. Rowan Y.M. 1998. Ancient Distribution and Deposition of Prestige Objects: Basalt Vessels during Late Prehistory in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. diss. The University of Texas. Austin.

189

Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R. 2004. Giv‘at Ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site (Salvage Excavations Reports 1). Tel Aviv. Schick T. 1998. The Cave of the Warrior. A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert (IAA Report 5). Jerusalem. Sebanne M. 1997. Maceheads in the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant. M.A. thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Shalev S. 1991. Two Different Copper Industries in the Chalcolithic Culture of Israel. In J.P. Mohen and C. Eluere eds. Découverte du metal. Paris. Pp. 413–424. Shalev S. 1994. Change in Metal Production from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age in Israel and Jordan. Antiquity 68:630–637. Stekelis M. 1935. Les monuments megalithiques de Palestine (Archives de l’Institut de Palèontologie Humaine 15). Paris. Stekelis M. and Haas G. 1952. The Abu Usba Cave (Mount Carmel). IEJ 2:15–47. Sukenik E.L. 1937. A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Hederah. JPOS 17:15–30. Sussman V. and Ben-Arieh S. 1966. Ancient Burials at Giv‘atayim. ‘Atiqot (HS) 3:7–39. Tadmor M., Kedem D., Begemann F., Hauptmann A., Pernicka E. and Schmitt-Strecker S. 1995. The Nahal Mishmar Hoard from the Judean Desert: Technology, Composition and Provenance. ‘Atiqot 27:95–148. Tsuk T. and Gopher A. 1993. Nahal Qanah Cave. NEAEHL 3:1085–1088. Vaux R. de 1957. Les fouilles de Tell el Far‘ah. La sixième campagne. RB 64:552–580. Watrin L. 1995. Les échanges entre la Palestine et l’Egypte au IV e millénaire: état de la question. M.A. thesis. Université de Paris. Pantheon-Sorbonne. Wolff S. 1996. Archaeology in Israel. AJA 100:725–768. Yannai E. Forthcoming. Tel ‘Esur (Tell Asawir): Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain, Israel (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Yannai E. and Porath Y. Forthcoming. A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Taiyiba. ‘Atiqot.

190

EDWIN C.M. VAN DEN BRINK

191

EXCURSUS 2

EXCURSUS 2

THE VEGETATION OF THE CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT NILI LIPHSCHITZ INTRODUCTION Direct evidence for the presence of plant species in antiquity can be derived from archaeological remains. Identification of wood remnants up to the species level enables one to reconstruct the past arboreal landscape, while the identification of fruit and seed remains can provide information about the dietary habits of the inhabitants in the relevant period. The time span of the Chalcolithic period covers about 1000 years (4500–3500 BCE; see Gilead 1994). The botanical remains gathered so far from layers of the Chalcolithic period are relatively few. However, accumulative data from various sites, located in diverse geographical regions of Israel, Sinai and Jordan, enable us to attempt a reconstruction of the native climax

vegetation and the macroclimate of that period, and to identify the edible plants which constituted the diet of the population at those sites.

MATERIAL AND METHODS The wood remains analyzed here originated from 27 archaeological sites. Of these, 16 sites are located in Israel, 7 sites in Sinai and 4 sites in Jordan (Table Exc. 2.1). The investigated sites in Israel are situated in various geographical regions from the Golan Heights in the north to the southern Arava in the south and represent a variety of climates and phytogeographical units. The investigated sites in Sinai are concentrated mainly in the southern region, and the sites in Jordan are located in the Jordan Valley. A total of 316 wood

Table Exc. 2.1 Chalcolithic Sites Yielding Wood Remains Site

Geographical Region

Map Reference

No. of Samples

Abu Pula

Golan Heights

212/266

3

Rasm Harbush

Golan Heights

221/250

30

ISRAEL

El-Majami

Golan Heights

216/263

2

Peqi‘in

Upper Galilee

1813/2644

7

Tel Hariz

Carmel Coast

1420/2340

7

H. Castra Cave

Mt. Carmel

1471/2437

1

Shoham

Shephelah

1444/1575

63

Giv‘at Oranim

Shephelah

1468/1588

19

Nahal Qana Cave

Shephelah

159/171

14

Tel Halif

SW Judean Mts.

1380/0878

Nahal Mishmar

Judean Desert

1810/0880

7

Tel Zaf

Upper Jordan Valley

2015/2024

21

‘En Gedi

Dead Sea region

1869/0974

10

Mt. Sedom Caves

Dead Sea region

Tel Masos

Northern Negev

146/069

Timna

Arava

1432/9115

Total

4

37 2 1 228

192

NILI LIPHSCHITZ

Table Exc. 2.1 (cont.) Site

Geographical Region

Map Reference

No. of Samples

SINAI Sinai Survey

NW Sinai

Guna 25

South Sinai

6020/1841 UTM

2

Wadi Tbeq

South Sinai

6072/1843 UTM

13

Site 1130

South Sinai

1

South Sinai survey

South Sinai

1

Serabit el-Khadem

South Sinai

0060/8298

1

‘Ein Um Ahmad

South Sinai

0922/8304 (= 6367/2136 UTM)

6

6

Total

30

JORDAN Tuleilat Ghassul

Jordan Valley

208/134

6

Abu Hamid

Jordan Valley

205/165

28

Pella

Jordan Valley

207/206

17

Tell esh-Shuna N.

Jordan Valley

207/224

Total

samples were identified, comprising 258 (see Chap. 12) wood samples from Israel and Sinai and 58 samples from Jordan. Some of the identified wood samples were also radiocarbon dated. Samples from Israel and Sinai were dated in Israel at the Weizmann Institute (Frumkin et al. 1991; Segal and Carmi 1996). The samples from Jordan were dated at other laboratories (Neef 1990). Fruit and seed remains were identified from thirteen sites in Israel and three sites in Jordan (Table Exc. 2.2).

R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the wood analyses are presented in Table Exc. 2.3. Although at some of the sites only a few remnants were identified, the assemblage as a whole is representative of the ancient arboreal vegetation that characterized the different geographical regions of Israel and the macroclimatic conditions prevailing in those habitats before massive human interference with nature. Wood remains of Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak), Quercus boissieri (Cyprus oak) and Olea europaea

7 58

Table Exc. 2.2. Chalcolithic Sites Yielding Seed and Fruit Remains Site

Geographical Region

Map Reference

Rasm Harbush

Golan Heights

221/250

El-Majami

Golan Heights

216/263

H. Castra Cave

Mt. Carmel

1471/2437

Shoham

Shephelah

1447/1569

Giv‘at Oranim

Shephelah

1468/1588

ISRAEL

Nahal Qana Cave

Shephelah

159/171

Bené Beraq

Shephelah

134/166

Tel Zaf

Upper Jordan Valley

2015/2024

Nahal Mishmar

Dead Sea Region

1810/0880

Tel Masos

Northern Negev

146/069

Shiqmim

Northern Negev

115/067

Tell Abu Matar

Northern Negev

1287/0715

H. Beter

Northern Negev

1290/0712

Jordan Valley

208/134

JORDAN Tuleilat Ghassul Abu Hamid

Jordan Valley

205/165

Tell esh-Shuna N.

Jordan Valley

207/224

193

EXCURSUS 2

Table Exc. 2.3. Distribution of Wood Species at Chalcolithic Sites GOLAN HEIGHTS AND UPPER GALILEE Site

Abu Pula

Species Quercus boissieri

Rasm Harbush

El-Majami

Peqi‘in 1

2

3

2

12

6

33

33

1

Quercus calliprinos Olea europaea

3

271

4

Total

Pistacia palaestina

1

1

Myrtus communis

1

1

2

7

43

Shoham

Giv‘at Oranim

N. Qana Cave

Total

4

30

CARMEL COAST, MT. CARMEL AND SW JUDEA Site

Tel Hariz

H. Castra

Species Quercus calliprinos

55

7

Quercus ithaburensis

4

Pistacia palaestina

4

Pistacia lentiscus

1

Olea europaea

1

1

Pinus halepensis

1

1

13

4

5

13

14

6

78

1 1 1

Myrtus communis

1

Ziziphus spina christi

3 7

1

73

19

NORTHERN NEGEV AND SOUTHERN ARAVA Site Species

Tel Masos

Timna

Total

Olea europaea

1

1

Acacia raddiana

1

1

Juniperus phoenica Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 3 47

Tamarix aphylla Total

2

Total

4

576

Rhamnus palaestinus

Tel Halif

1

1

1

3

RT-1862 = 3782–3662 BCE; RT-1866 = 3693–3507 BCE RT-2379 = 4597–4468 BCE RT-2381 = 4781–4618 BCE RT-2373 = 4584–4315 BCE RT-2167 = 4035–3940 BCE RT-2168 = 3990–3815 BCE RT-4084 = 3807–3695 BCE; RT-2137 = 4237–4044 BCE; RT-2138 = 3933–3708 BCE; RT-2139 = 4223–4003 BCE

15

4

4 119

194

NILI LIPHSCHITZ

Table Exc. 2.3 (cont.) JORDAN VALLEY AND DEAD SEA REGION Site

Tel Zaf

‘En Gedi

Nahal Mishmar

Mt. Sedom Caves

Total

Species Quercus ithaburensis

5

Tamarix jordanis

5

5 5

Tamarix (X5)

11

Tamarix sp.

4

Retama raetam

1

11

18

5 1

Ziziphus lotus

2

2

Pistacia atlantica

2

2

Pistacia lentiscus

1

Olea europaea

2

Populus euphratica

3

Acacia albida

1

1 1

3

10

13 1

Acacia sp.

1

Nitraria retusa

1 21

Atriplex halimus

21

1

1 9

Anabasis setifera

2

Phragmites communis

1

1

Total

2

21

10

7

37

75

NW Survey

Guna 25

Wadi Tbeq

Sites 1130 and 1139

Serabit el-Khadem

2

3

510+ 111

SINAI Site Species Phoenix dactylifera

1

Pistacia khinjuk

5

1

Tamarix (X5)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15

13

17

314

13

15

2

1

10

2 12

Acacia raddiana 6

2

13

848G = 3780 BCE (in Frumkin et al. 1991:193, 199) 848E = 4420 BCE; 886D = 3850 BCE RT-1809 = 4146–3988 BCE RT-1811 = 4322–4047 BCE RT-1807 = 4240–4000 BCE RT-1852 = 4347–4103 BCE RT-1858 = 3992–3815 BCE; RT-1851 = 3987–3807 BCE; RT-1857 = 4456–4360 BCE RT-1856 = 4762–4603 BCE; RT-1859 = 4673–4467 BCE

6+1

Total 2

Tamarix (4)

Total

‘Ein Ahmed

1

1

2

1

7

36

EXCURSUS 2

Table Exc. 2.3 (cont.) JORDAN (+ to ++++ : frequency (from Willcox 1992a, b) Site Species

Tuleilat Ghassul

Abu Hamid

Quercus Amygdalus

Tell eshShuna

+++ +

Crataegus

+

Rhamnus

+

Ziziphus spina christi

+

Quercus ithaburensis

+

Olea europaea

Pella

+16

+17

++

+18

16 GrN-15194 = 4240–4045 BCE olive wood; GrN-15195 = 4350–3820 BCE olive wood (Neef 1990) 17 GrN–16358 = 4720–4525 BCE olive stone (Neef 1990) 18 GrN–15199 = 3990–3820 BCE olive wood; GrN-15200 = 3990–3820 BCE olive wood (Neef 1990)

(olive) were identified in the Golan Heights (Liphschitz 1986a; 1987). Wood remains of Quercus calliprinos, Quercus boissieri, Pistacia palaestina (terebinth), Olea europaea and Myrtus communis (myrtle) were found in Peqi‘in Cave in the Upper Galilee (Liphschitz 1996b), and remains of Quercus calliprinos were retrieved at Tel Hariz on the Carmel coast (Liphschitz 1986b). Wood remains of Olea europaea were also uncovered in a cave at Horbat Castra (Haifa [South]), located on the lower reaches of Mt. Carmel. At three sites in the Shephelah (Nahal Qana Cave, Giv‘at Oranim and Shoham), similar assemblages of Quercus calliprinos and Quercus ithaburensis (Mt. Tabor oak), Pistacia palaestina and Pistacia lentiscus (lentisk), Olea europaea, Myrtus communis, Rhamnus palaestinus (buckthorn), Pinus halepensis (Aleppo pine) and Ziziphus spina christi (jujube, Christ thorn) were collected (Liphschitz 1996a, 1999; above, Chap. 12). Comprehensive dendroarchaeological research in Israel has shown that the climax arboreal vegetation which covered the Mediterranean territory of the country in antiquity was dominated by the Quercus calliprinos–Pistacia palaestina association (Liphschitz and Biger 1990). The arboreal species from Chalcolithic layers of sites located in the Mediterranean region of the country once again confirm this conclusion. At one site located in the southwestern Judean Hills (Tel Halif), wood remains of Tamarix aphylla

195

(tamarisk) were identified (see Segal and Carmi 1996). This tree still appears in the region today. Very few remains represent the Negev. Remnants of Acacia raddiana (acacia) and Olea europaea were found at Tel Masos in the northern Negev (Liphschitz and Waisel 1983). Acacia raddiana is one of the main trees which characterized the region. Olea europaea could have grown there as well. A single piece of Juniperus phoenica (red juniper) wood was identified from a Chalcolithic site in the southern Arava (Timna) (Fahn, Werker and Bass 1986:56). This piece most probably originated in north Sinai or Edom, two regions where this species still grows today. Wood remains of eight tree species from Tel Zaf represent the upper Jordan Valley (Liphschitz 1988– 1989): Quercus ithaburensis, Tamarix jordanis, Ziziphus lotus, Pistacia atlantica (atlantic pistachio), Pistacia lentiscus, Olea europaea, Populus euphratica (Euphrates poplar) and Acacia albida. All these species grow in the area today and no doubt grew there in the past. Remains of Populus euphratica were also collected in the Dead Sea region (‘En Gedi), where they still grow (Liphschitz 1986a:87). The area of Mt. Sedom yielded wood remains of present-day local species, mainly shrubs, including Tamarix (X5), Nitraria retusa (nitraria), Atriplex halimus (shrubby salt bush; Spanish sea purslane) and Anabasis setifera (Liphschitz 1986a; see also Frumkin et al. 1991:193, 199). The wood remains of a weaving loom found in the Cave of the Treasure in Nahal Mishmar were identified by Fahn and Werker (Bar Adon 1980:215, n. 82) as Tamarix sp., Acacia sp., Retama raetam (white broom) and Olea europaea. Thus, the Chalcolithic wood assemblage gathered in the Negev, Jordan Valley and Dead Sea regions resembles the local present-day arboreal vegetation (Liphschitz 1996c). Wood remains collected in Sinai include five tree species, all growing today in the same regions: Phoenix dactylifera (date palm), Pistacia khinjuk, Tamarix (X4), Tamarix (X5) and Acacia raddiana (Liphschitz 1998, 2003, 2004; see also Segal and Carmi 1996:79, 100–105). The Chalcolithic sites in Jordan (Tuleilat Ghassul, Abu Hamid, Pella and Tell esh-Shuna North) are located in the Jordan Valley (Willcox 1992a, b). Unfortunately, identification in most cases was made up to the genus level only. The wood remains consist of four genera

196

NILI LIPHSCHITZ

(Quercus, Rhamnus, Crataegus and Amygdalus) and three species (Quercus ithaburensis, Olea europaea and Ziziphus spina christi). Most of those wood remains were very probably brought to the sites from the nearby hills (Willcox 1992a, b), thus representing the Mediterranean vegetation. As is evident from the dendroarchaeological research, the Chalcolithic arboreal vegetation that characterized the different phytogeographical regions of the southern Levant resembled that of the presentday, indicating similar macroclimatic conditions in both Israel and Jordan. Furthermore, comprehensive dendroarchaeological research at numerous sites in Israel indicates that the macroclimate has remained more or less stable for the last 10,000 years (Liphschitz 1988). Edible fruits and seeds collected from Chalcolithic sites in Israel include grains of wheat (Triticum

monococcum, T. dicoccum and T. parviflorum) and barley (Hordeum distichum and H. sativum), olive stones (Olea europaea), seeds of lentils (Lens esculenta and L. culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum), date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), figs (Ficus carica) and Allium sativum (Table Exc.2.4; Golan Heights—Liphschitz 1987; Tell Abu Matar—Negbi 1955; Shiqmim—Kislev 1987; Bené Beraq and H. Beter—Zaitscheck 1958: n. 26 on p. 74; 1959; Tel Zaf—Gophna and Kislev 1979; Giv‘at Oranim—Liphschitz 2004). Similar fruits and seeds were found at Chalcolithic sites in Jordan: Abu Hamid and Tuleilat Ghassul (Lee 1973; Neef 1986, 1990). These food remains represent the dietary habits of the population at that time. The similarity of the remains at all the sites suggests that food was transported from site to site.

Table Exc. 2.4. Distribution of Seeds and Fruits at Chalcolithic Sites ISRAEL Site Species Olea europaea

Rasm Harbush

ElMajami

H. Castra Cave

Shoham

Giv‘at Oranim

Bené Beraq

N. Qana Cave

Tel Zaf

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Vicia sp.

+

Triticum sp.

+

Triticum dicoccum

+

Lens culinaris

+

Pisum sp.

+

+

Ficus carica

+

ISRAEL (cont.)

JORDAN Site

Species

Abu Matar

Horbat Beter

Olea europaea

Tel Masos +

Phoenix dactylifera

Nahal Mishmar

+

+

Triticum monococcum

+

+

Site Species Hordeum vulgare

+

Triticum dicoccum

+

Tuleilat Ghassul

Abu Hamid

+

+

Triticum dicoccum Lens culinaris

+ +

Lens sp.

+

Pisum sativum

Triticum parvicoccum Hordeum distichum

+

+

Hordeum sativum

+

+

+

Lens esculenta

+

+

+

Lens culinaris Allium sativum

Shiqmim

Olea europaea

+

+

Phoenix dactylifera

+

Ziziphus spina christi +

+

+

+

+

+

EXCURSUS 2

197

REFERENCES Bar Adon P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds from the Caves in Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Dollfus G., Kafafi Z., Rewerski J., Vaillant N., Coqueugniot E., Desse J. and Neef R. 1988. Abu Hamid, an Early Fourth Millennium Site in the Jordan Valley. In A.N. Garrard and H.G. Gebel eds. The Prehistory of Jordan (BAR Int. S. 396). Oxford. Pp. 567–601. Fahn A., Werker E. and Baas P. 1986. Wood Anatomy and Identification of Trees and Shrubs from Israel and Adjacent Regions. Jerusalem. Frumkin A., Magaritz M., Carmi I. and Zak I. 1991. The Holocene Climatic Record of the Salt Caves of Mt. Sedom, Israel. Holocene 1:191–200. Gilead I. 1994. The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The Radiocarbon Aspects. BASOR 296:1–13. Gophna R. and Kislev M. 1979. Tel Tsaf (1977–79). RB 86:112–114. Kislev M.E. 1987. Chalcolithic Plant Husbandry and Ancient Vegetation at Shiqmim. In T.E. Levy ed. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (BAR Int. S. 356). Oxford. Pp. 251–279, 549– 563. Lee J.R. 1973. Chalcolithic Ghassul: New Aspects and Master Typology. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Pp. 303–304. Liphschitz N. 1986a. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: Mt. Sedom Caves (Mimeographed Report No. 148. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz N. 1986b. The Vegetational Landscape and the Macroclimate of Israel during Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. Mitekufat Haeven. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 19:80–90. Liphschitz N. 1987. The History of Arboreal Vegetation of the Golan. Rotem 23–34:84–92, 159–160 (Hebrew; English summary). Liphschitz N. 1988. Dendrochronological and Dendroarchaeological Investigations in Israel as a Means for the Reconstruction of Past Vegetation and Climate. Pact 22:133–146. Liphschitz N. 1988–1989. Analysis of the Botanical Remains from Tel Tsaf. Tel Aviv 15–16:52–54. Liphschitz N. 1990. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: Mt. Sedom Caves (Mimeographed Report No. 195. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz N. 1996a. Archaeobotanical Investigations of Nahal Qanah Cave. In A. Gopher and T. Tsuk eds. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 12). Tel Aviv. Pp. 202–204.

Liphschitz N. 1996b. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: Peqi’in Cave (Mimeographed Report No. 278. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz N. 1996c. The History of Vegetational Landscape of the Negev during Antiquity as Evident from Archaeological Wood Remains. Israel Journal of Plant Science 44: 161–180. Liphschitz N. 1998. Vegetational Landscape of Sinai during Antiquity as Evident from Archaeological Wood Remains. Israel Journal of Plant Science 46:53–59. Liphschitz N. 1999. Dendroarchaeological Investigations: H. Castra (Haifa South), Mt. Carmel. A Chalcolithic Cave (Mimeographed Report No. 306. Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Liphschitz N. 2003. Archaeobotanical Remains. In I. Beit-Arieh ed. Sinai (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2). Tel Aviv. Pp. 257–262. Liphschitz N. 2004. Archaeobotanical Remains. In N. Scheftelowitz and R. Oren eds. Giv‘at Ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site (Salvage Excavations Report 1). Tel Aviv. Pp 80–81. Liphschitz N. and Biger G. 1990. Dominance of Quercus Calliprinos (Kermes Oak)—Pistacia Palaestina (Terebinth) Association in the Mediterranean Territory of Eretz Israel during Antiquity. Journal of Vegetation Science 1:67–70. Liphschitz N. and Waisel Y. 1983. Analysis of the Botanical Material of the 1972, 1974 and 1975 Seasons of Tel Masos. In V. Fritz and A. Kempinski eds. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet El-Masos, 1972–1975. Wiesbaden. Pp. 208–213. Neef R.1986. Preliminary Results of the Botanical Remains. ADAJ 30:377–378. Neef R. 1990. Introduction, Development and Environmental Implications of Olive Culture. The Evidence from Jordan. In S. Bottema, G. Entges-Nieborg and W. van Zeist eds. Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape. Rotterdam. Pp. 295–306. Negbi M. 1955. The Botanical Finds at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. IEJ 55:257–258. Segal D. and Carmi I. 1996. Rehovot Radiocarbon Date List V. ‘Atiqot 29:79–106. Willcox G. 1992a. Archaeobotanical Investigations at Pella (1983). In A.W. McNicoll, P.C. Edwards, G. HanburyTenison, G.B. Hennessy, T.F. Pots, R.H. Smith, A. Walmsley and P. Watson eds. Pella in Jordan II. Sydney. Pp. 253–256. Willcox G. 1992b. Timber and Trees: Ancient Exploitation in the Middle East: Evidence from Plant Remains. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6:1–31. Zaitschek D.V. 1958. Excavations at Afula. ‘Atiqot 1:71–74. Zaitschek D.V. 1959. Remains of Cultivated Plants from Horvat Beter (Beersheba). ‘Atiqot (ES) 2:48–52.

198

NILI LIPHSCHITZ

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1

AREA A1. LIST OF LOCI AND BASKETS

Cave 1 Locus

Description

Baskets

100

Topsoil in north-central part of cave

1000, 1005, 1013, 1019, 1022, 1027, 1046, 1067

102

Fill in NE part of cave

1006, 1014, 1020, 1044

112

Topsoil in west-central part of cave

1018, 1034

116

Southern half of limekiln

1028, 1030, 1032, 1038, 1045, 1077, 1081, 1111, 1114

122

Chalcolithic burials in north-central part of cave, E of natural pillar

1052, 1058, 1064, 1066, 1071, 1075, 1090, 1098, 1101, 1104, 1106, 1110, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1128, 1129, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155

139

Topsoil in south-central part of cave

1156, 1159, 1171, 1174, 1180, 1181, 1190

140

Topsoil in SE rear of cave

1157

141

Fill inside limekiln (L116)

1158, 1164, 1191

142

Topsoil in W part of cave

1160, 1169, 1179, 1185, 1192, 1197, 1198, 1207

148

Topsoil in NW part of cave

1201

152a

IBA burial in S rear in west-central part of cave

1216, 1217, 1219, 1245, 1246, 1306, 1599, 1601

152b

Fill in W part of cave, below roof collapse

1220, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1247, 1248, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1307, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1327, 1328, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1355, 1356, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364

155

Chalcolithic burials SE of pillar

1287, 1288

157

Topsoil in SW rear of cave

1346, 1364b, 1365

Locus

Description

Baskets

113a

Stepped entrance, blocked by stone boulders

1021, 1026, 1029, 1031, 1035

113b

Same as above, after removal of boulders at the end of the stairs

1039, 1047, 1053, 1059, 1068, 1072, 1076, 1108

127

Dark topsoil

1097, 1102, 1105, 1112, 1165, 1172, 1173, 1182, 1183, 1188, 1189, 1195, 1196, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1208, 1209, 1212, 1231, 1239, 1383, 1386, 1395, 1556, 2000, 2007

Cave 2

199

200

Cave 2 (cont.) Locus

Description

Baskets

128a

Late EB I domestic debris in light brown soil matrix below L127

1078, 1082, 1213, 1218, 1221, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1232, 1237, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1244, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1258, 1259, 1261, 1265

128b

Layer of stone debris (fallen from the ceiling)

1266, 1267, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1289, 1290

128c

Layer below stone debris

1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1368, 1384, 1396, 1398, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1424, 1425, 1447, 1487, 1488, 1498, 1499, 1514, 1527, 1528, 1545, 1557, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2044, 2046

129a

Chalcolithic burials on bedrock

1086, 1087, 1088, 1094, 1095, 1260, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1354, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1385, 1393, 1394, 1397, 1407, 1408, 1412, 1422, 1423, 1427, 1428, 1438, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1446, 1458, 1462, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473, 1474, 1476, 1489, 1535, 1552, 1564, 1565, 1573, 1600

129b

Fill in niche immediately west of stepped entrance

1439, 1445, 1459, 1477, 1478, 1553, 1572

129c

Below partially-removed ceiling collapse in SW part of cave

1426, 1440, 1448, 1460, 1461, 1475, 1490, 1491, 1492, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1529, 1530, 1532, 1534, 1554, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569,1570, 1571, 1594, 1595

129d

N rear of cave

1531, 1533, 1544, 1546, 1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1555, 1558

153

Pit cutting into L128

1228

176

Fill in NE corner of cave; connection between Caves 2 and 4

1513, 1526

182

Fill in NW part of pit in bedrock in NE corner of cave

1591, 1592, 1593

Locus

Description

Baskets

106

Opening in NW part of cave

-

117

Probe A: topsoil (Str. I)

1037, 1042, 1049, 1055, 1062, 1073

118

Test trench

1036, 1040, 1041, 1048, 1054

120

Probe B (niche): topsoil

1050, 1063, 1074, 1080, 1085, 1130

126

Probe A: compact, dark layer mixed with limestone chips (Str. II)

1079, 1083, 1084, 1092, 1117, 1127

160

Fill in NW part of collapsed cave

1352, 1353

162

Natural fill in westernmost part of collapsed cave down to bedrock

1374, 1375

164

Fill below opening in NW part of cave 1378

-

Cave 3

APPENDIX 1

The Caved-in Area between Caves 3 and 4 Locus

Description

Baskets

135

Collapse between Caves 3 and 4

1100, 1103, 1107

145

Collapse between Caves 3 and 4

1163, 1167, 1176, 1187, 1194, 1200, 1229, 1242, 1252, 1262, 1263, 1271, 1277, 1330, 1336, 1351, 1357, 1359

154

Collapse between Caves 3 and 4

1276, 1316

158

Collapse between Caves 3 and 4

1347

Description

Baskets

130

Inside cave, around ‘air-hole’

1089

150

Topsoil

1211, 1215, 1222, 1367, 1376, 1377, 1387, 1390

166

Dark soil

1403, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1450, 1451

169a

SE corner: light brownish soil with large stones, near bedrock

1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1559, 1560, 1563

169b

Bedrock level

1574, 1575, 1576

180

NW corner: deep pit in bedrock

1583, 1584, 1585, 1597

181

SW corner: deep pit in bedrock

1586, 1587, 1596

Cave 4 Locus

Sq 1

Sq 1b 184

Cleaning topsoil

2001

188

Layer of yellowish-brown soil with small stones

2005, 2008, 2011, 2018, 2023

191

Shallow pit, S of pillar

2019

151

Topsoil

1214, 1223, 1230, 1243, 1253, 1264, 1272, 1278, 1282, 1317, 1318, 1388, 1389

156

IBA debris in brownish soil

1319, 1366

163

Layer of compact yellowish soil

1406

Sq 2

165

1391, 1392, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1437, 1449, 1457

168

Just above ‘floor’

1464

170

Stone-filled pit

1463

171

Light brown soil below ‘floor’

1465, 1479, 1484, 1485, 1497, 1507, 1508

177a

Light brown soil below L171

1518, 1519, 1520, 1536, 1537

177b

Bedrock level

1579, 1580, 1581,1582

178

S third of Sq 2

1542, 1543, 1561, 1562

187

Cleaning

2004, 2006, 2013

199

East balk

2038, 2050, 2054, 2072

203

Cleaning sections

2045

222

Removal of W balk down to bedrock

2087

231

West balk

2108

201

202

Cave 4 (cont.) Locus

Description

Baskets

167

Topsoil

1404, 1405, 1483, 1486

172

Reddish-brown soil

1493, 1494, 1495, 1496

173

As L172

1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506

174

‘Room’ between wall and N rear of cave

1521, 1538

175a

Reddish-brown soil S of wall

1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1577, 1578, 1598

175b

Bedrock level

1588, 1589, 1590

210

South balk (on bedrock level)

2063

225

Dark brown soil

2096, 2102, 2106

229

Pit

2103

230

Chalcolithic burial

2104, 2107

233

Pit at NW edge of ‘pillar’

2110

234

Pit

2111

235

Pit

2112

185

Cleaning topsoil

2002, 2071, 2081, 2083, 2091

189

Topsoil (dark brown)

2009, 2012, 2017, 2022, 2034

192

Collapse layer (brown soil)

2024, 2028

196

Dark brown soil with limestone chips

2029, 2035

198

Dark soil

2033, 2040, 2048

205

Balk between Sq 3b and pillar

2049

207

Sq 3b and S balk: dark brown soil with many limestone chips

2055, 2058, 2061

209

Darkish layer of soil

2062, 2064, 2065, 2070, 2080, 2082, 2090, 2092, 2101

186

Cleaning topsoil

2003

190

Dark brown topsoil

2014, 2016, 2021

193

Dark topsoil with limestone chips

2025

194

Dark soil with limestone chips

2026, 2031

195

Brown soil

2027, 2032, 2037

197

Light brown soil (below L194)

2030, 2036, 2042

200

Balk; topsoil

2039

201

Connection with Sq 2

2041

202

Balk; below L200

2043

204

Collapse layer

2047, 2051

206

Dark brown soil with many pits (refuse area?)

2052, 2053, 2057, 2060, 2066, 2068

208

Pit in SW

2056, 2059

Sq 3

Sq 3b

Sq 4

211

Near opening to Cave 2

2067, 2073

212

S section

2069

213

Pit

2074

214

Pit

2075

APPENDIX 1

Cave 4 (cont.) Locus

Description

Baskets

215

Pit

2076

216

Pit

2077

217

Pit

2078

218

Pit

2079

219

Thin yellowish erosion layer

2084

220

Dark brown, ashy fill below L219

2085, 2088, 2093, 2098

221

Yellowish gray layer of soil below L220

2086

223

Pit

2089, 2094

224

SW corner

2095

226

Pit in SW corner

2097

227

Brown, habitation layer below yellow layer

2099, 2105

228

Pit

2100

232

E–W section cleaning

2109

Surface above Caves 1–4 Locus

Description

Baskets

101

Winepress I

-

103

Sinkhole

1001, 1011

104

Natural depression in bedrock

1002

105

Natural depression in bedrock

-

107

Natural depression in bedrock

1007, 1016

108

Sinkhole

1008, 1015, 1023

109

Natural depression in bedrock

1012

110

Natural depression in bedrock

1009

111

Natural depression in bedrock

1010, 1017

114

Natural depression in bedrock

1025

115

Surface west of Cave 1

1024

119

Natural depression in bedrock W of L101

1033, 1043, 1051

121

Natural depression in bedrock

1057

123

Natural depression in bedrock S of L101

1056, 1061, 1070

124

Natural depression in bedrock N of L101

1060

125

Sinkhole (plastered pit)

1065, 1069

131

Natural fill above roof collapse in westernmost part of Cave 1

1091, 1118

132

Natural depression in bedrock S of Cave 1

1093

133

Winepress II

1096

134

Winepress II

1099

136

Sinkhole E of Loci 134/135

1109

137

Natural depression in bedrock, S of L101

1113

138

Surface north of Cave 3

1115

143

Natural depression in bedrock in SE part of area

1161, 1168, 1175, 1184

144

Natural depressions in bedrock E of entrance to Cave 2 (L113)

1162, 1166, 1170, 1177, 1186

203

204

Surface above Caves 1–4 (cont.) Locus

Description

Baskets

146

Natural depressions in bedrock W of entrance to Cave 2 (L113)

1178, 1199, 1206

147

Natural depression in bedrock NW of Cave 1

1193

149

Natural depression in bedrock SW of Cave 1

1210

159

Natural depression in bedrock in SE corner of excavation area

1329

161

Natural depression in bedrock above Cave 3

1358

205

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BASKET NUMBERS FROM CAVE 4, THE SECOND EXCAVATION SEASON With counts of diagnostic and non-diagnostic pottery sherds

Basket

Locus

Upper Level

Lower Level

Number of Diagnostic Sherds

Number of Body Sherds

2001

184

-

-

6

3

2002

185

-

-

1

5

2003

186

-

-

10

26

2004

187

-

-

1

9

2005

188

88.44

88.44

1

2

2006

187

-

-

1

-

2008

188

88.44

88.29

-

-

2009

189

88.72

88.72

2

5

2011

188

88.29

87.90

4

10

2012

189

88.47

87.86

7

24

2013

187

-

-

6

-

2014

190

88.56

88.36

10

30

2016

190

88.36

88.11

11

40

2017

189

87.86

87.82

18

46

2018

188

87.90

87.35

5

43

2019

191

87.70

87.35

6

50

2021

190

88.11

87.79

9

67

2022

189

87.82

87.73

6

49

2023

188

87.35

87.35

10

73

2024

192

88.02

87.73

29

114

2025

193

88.74

88.10

16

67

2026

194

88.10

87.83

-

26

2027

195

87.79

87.53

30

163

2028

192

87.73

87.39

32

157

2029

196

87.55

87.35

12

73

2030

197

87.83

87.83

2

20

2031

194

87.83

87.83

4

26

2032

195

87.53

-

18

201

2033

198

87.39

-

56

277

2034

189

-

-

13

23

2035

196

87.35

-

8

47

2036

197

87.83

87.70

39

181

2037

195

-

-

16

61

2038

199

87.80

87.53

41

97

2039

200

-

-

4

5

206

Basket

Locus

Upper Level

Lower Level

Number of Diagnostic Sherds

Number of Body Sherds

2040

198

-

87.46

83

137

2041

201

87.80

87.53

90

355

2042

197

87.70

87.52

24

166

2043

202

88.40

88.35

25

88

2045

203

-

-

22

78

2047

204

87.80

87.43

152

909

2048

198

87.46

87.46

3

-

2049

205

88.19

87.59

12

43

2050

199

87.53

87.41

19

97

2051

204

87.43

87.30

105

597

2052

206

87.43

87.25

152

805

2053

206

87.35

87.35

1

-

2054

199

87.41

87.13

166

900

2055

207

87.52

87.37

54

161

2056

208

87.25

87.22

19

440

2057

206

87.30

87.18

206

1168

2058

207

87.23

87.15

50

197

2059

208

87.22

86.96

3

34

2060

206

87.18

86.96

180

743

2061

207

87.15

87.15

51

289

2062

209

87.15

86.97

15

96

2063

210

86.12

86.12

8

11

2064

209

87.15

86.97

-

-

2065

209

87.15

-

51

59

2066

206

86.96

86.95

299

1286

2067

211

86.91

86.74

49

218

2068

206

86.95

86.95

237

1432

2069

212

-

-

32

84

2070

209

-

86.73

50

192

2071

185

-

86.47

88

210

2072

199

87.13

86.75

60

114

2073

211

86.91

86.52

96

379

2074

213

86.95

86.67

22

80

2075

214

86.95

86.73

22

102

2076

215

86.95

86.80

32

165

2077

216

86.95

86.70

25

135

2078

217

86.95

86.69

34

129

2079

218

86.95

86.72

45

127

2080

209

86.73

-

114

231

2081

185

86.47

-

35

54

2082

209

86.77

86.55

116

280

2083

185

86.61

86.34

33

64

2084

219

86.93

86.93

78

312

207

APPENDIX 2

Basket

Locus

Upper Level

Lower Level

Number of Diagnostic Sherds

Number of Body Sherds

2085

220

86.93

86.65

172

687

2086

221

86.61

86.55

-

-

2087

222

87.17

86.76

82

126

2088

220

86.65

-

99

656

2089

223

-

-

16

109

2090

209

-

-

30

143

2091

185

-

-

41

124

2092

209

-

86.39

121

572

2093

220

-

86.28

262

890

2094

223

-

86.33

8

54

2095

224

-

86.46

30

83

2096

225

-

86.18

36

70 33

2097

226

-

86.32

4

2098

220

86.28

86.28

19

44

2099

227

86.28

85.97

171

553

2100

228

86.28

85.97

25

108

2101

209

86.39

86.39

12

58

2102

225

86.18

86.18

54

101

2103

229

86.37

85.92

13

44

2104

230

86.35

86.21

7

47

2105

227

85.97

85.97

36

88

2106

225

86.18

86.18

-

-

2107

230

86.21

86.21

64

207

2108

231

86.85

86.42

34

155

2109

232

87.39

86.47

105

570

2110

233

86.52

86.26

26

35

2111

234

86.29

86.14

2

18

2112

235

86.25

86.18

-

-

208

IAA REPORTS

No. 1 G. Avni and Z. Greenhut, The Akeldama Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1996, 129 pp.

No. 15 M. Dayagi-Mendels, The Akhziv Cemeteries: The Ben-dor Excavations, 1941–1944, 2002, 176 pp.

No. 2 E. Braun, Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel, 1997, 249 pp.

No. 16 Y. Goren and P. Fabian, Kissufim Road: A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site, 2002, 97 pp.

No. 3 G. Edelstein, I. Milevski and S. Aurant, Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–1989, 1998, 149 pp. No. 4 C. Epstein, The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan, 1998, 352 pp. + plans. Hardcover. No. 5 T. Schick, The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert, 1998, 137 pp. No. 6 R. Cohen, Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev: The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (Hebrew, English Summary), 1999, 396 pp. No. 7 R. Hachlili and A. Killebrew, Jericho: The Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period, 1999, 202 pp. No. 8 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village, 2000, 247 pp. No. 9 U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period: The Archaeological Remains, 2000, 250 pp. + map. No. 10 Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim: The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (Hebrew, English Summary), 2000, 216 pp.

No. 17 A. Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70, 2003, 183 pp. No. 18 A. Golani, Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat ‘Ata, 2003, 261 pp. No. 19 H. Khalaily and O. Marder, The Neolithic Site of Abu Ghosh: The 1995 Excavations, 2003, 146 pp. No. 20 R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands II (Hebrew, English Summary), 2004, 258 pp. No. 21 D. Stacey, Exavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974: The Early Islamic Periods, 2004, 259 pp. No. 22 Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, 2004, 234 pp. No. 23 S. Ben-Arieh, Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim, 2004, 212 pp. No. 24 M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo, Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969), 2005, 320 pp. No. 25 M. Avissar, Tel Yoqne‘am: Excavations on the Acropolis, 2005, 142 pp.

No. 11 M. Hartal, The al-Subayba (Nimrod) Fortress: Towers 11 and 9, 2001, 129 pp.

No. 26 M. Avissar and E.J. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel, 2005, 187 pp., 53 figs., 34 color plates.

No. 12 R. Gonen, Excavations at Efrata: A Burial Ground from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages, 2001, 153 pp.

No. 27 E.C.M. van den Brink and Ram Gophna, Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel, 2005, 214 pp.

No. 13 E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 2001, 227 pp.

No. 28 N. Getzov, The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995, 2006.

No. 14 R. Frankel, N. Getzov, M. Aviam and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee, 2001, 175 pp. + color distribution maps and foldout map.